Update no.445

Update from the Heartland

No.445

21.6.10 – 27.6.10

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

To all,

This has been a rough week for Melissa and Tyson. A routine pregnancy progress check-up turned into an immediate trip to the hospital and a huge roller-coaster ride of ups and downs as contractions eased and then returned. Saturday noon, we received a text message from Melissa indicating conditions were stable, and she was looking forward to going home. By early evening, Tyson called to say the baby was coming. Our newest grandchild, a girl, Avalon Mar was born nine weeks premature at 18:36 [S] CDT – 4 lbs. 15 oz.; 18 in.; 10 fingers, 10 toes, and APGAR 8. Avalon was determined to make a grand entrance and she did! Melissa is recovering and hopefully getting a little rest. Melissa’s Mom, Kris, was able to go down to take care of Judson James, while Tyson focused on Melissa. Avalon is doing quite well, no additional support. Her exceptionally good health condition is physical testament to the extra care and attention Melissa has given to her pregnancies and specifically this one. We are so very proud of Melissa, Tyson, Judson James and Avalon Mar.

The follow-up news items:
--The NYC Times Square car bomber Faisal Shahzad [437] pleaded guilty in federal court to ten charges, including attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction and terrorism. I trust he will be incarcerated for the rest of his natural life.
-- With Tropical Storm Alex churning in the Caribbean and an ROV bumping into the well cap vent, the struggle continues in the Gulf and along the coasts of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida. I learned after the fact that Congress and the President took a mere six (6) days from introduction to signing into law the amendment of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 [PL 111-191; S.3473; H.R.5499; House: 410-0-1-20(4); Senate: unanimous consent] for the Deepwater Horizon disaster [442 & sub], to increase the funding of the Coast Guard and bring spending in compliance with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go-Act of 2010 [PL 111-139]. As we await the completion of the relief wells in mid-August, we absorb and learn more of what happened. BP has an eerie history of accidents, which in turn most often represents a lack of concern for human and environmental safety, or rather an imbalance between safety and profit. Engineering is a constant balancing act between safety, performance, and risk. BP’s history of accidents and safety violations suggests an endemic culture of cutting corners for performance (profit) . . . great for the shareholders in the short term, disastrous in the long term. I see the culture of risk taking as no different from what the Wall Street bankers, AIG insurers, mortgage brokers, and hedge fund managers did to the U.S. and World economies over the last several decades. They took inordinate risk for profit and willingly sacrificed safety / security. While Tony Hayward may not recognize it, like General McChrystal, he sets the tone for the company, conditions employees to respond in certain ways when decisions must be made; he can claim no culpability due to his lofty position, but such disavowal will not go far.

Who would have thought a single article in a predominately entertainment magazine would have caused such a disturbance in the Force?
“The Runaway General – Stanley McChrystal, Obama's top commander in Afghanistan, has seized control of the war by never taking his eye off the real enemy: The wimps in the White House”
by Michael Hastings
Rolling Stone
Posted: June 22, 2010 10:00 AM EDT
This article originally appeared in RS 1108/1109 from July 8-22, 2010.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/119236
President Obama has relieved General Stanley A. McChrystal, USA [USMA’76] of his combat command as Commander, International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) and Commander, U.S. Forces Afghanistan (USFOR-A) [387]. Some say this was not Stan’s first mistake as they allege that it was McChrystal or his staff that leaked the report: “COMISAF’s Initial Assessment” dated 30.August.2009 [406], to apply more pressure on the President and the administration for more troops. I have read the Rolling Stone article – definitely not good! The New York Times referred to McChrystal’s comments as “hugely undisciplined,” and I must emphatically agree. It is hard for me to believe that a general officer, so highly regarded, intelligent and competent, would make such foolish remarks amid an open audience and especially the Press. Part of me does not want to believe it was intentional. Regardless, the available information strongly suggests that McChrystal sought a direct challenge to the political leadership, much like MacArthur’s statements and actions in 1950, but if so, then I wonder why . . . to what purpose? Nonetheless, such events are always regrettable on many levels . . . actually very sad. Yet, at the end to the day, the arrogance of his staff and his complacency regarding the Press left the President with no viable choice other than to fire his ass . . . but still, a very somber moment in military history. General McChrystal released the following statement:
“This morning the President accepted my resignation as Commander of U.S. and NATO Coalition Forces in Afghanistan. I strongly support the President's strategy in Afghanistan and am deeply committed to our coalition forces, our partner nations, and the Afghan people. It was out of respect for this commitment - and a desire to see the mission succeed - that I tendered my resignation. It has been my privilege and honor to lead our nation's finest.”
A plethora of talking heads offered the full spectrum of opinions from unconditional support to outright condemnation. Most notable among the array was the condemnation of Michael Hastings, ostensibly for his betrayal of the access and confidence given him by McChrystal’s staff. I do not doubt that Stan & his staff thought, spoke and acted as portrayed in Hastings’ article. I respectfully submit that such disdain for the political faction of a war team strongly reflects upon the dysfunctional relationship and portends less than desirable outcomes. Yet, at the end of the day, the General was not served well by his staff, but he set the tone. What a waste of a good man!

U.S. District Court Judge Martin Leach-Cross Feldman of the Eastern District of Louisiana issued an injunction against the Federal government’s six-month moratorium on deepwater drilling – Hornbeck Offshore Services v. Salazar [USDC LAED civil action no. 10-1663 (2010)]. Judge Feldman observed, “If some drilling equipment parts are flawed, is it rational to say all are? Are all airplanes a danger because one was? All oil tankers like Exxon Valdez? All trains? All mines? That sort of thinking seems heavy- handed, and rather overbearing.” He noted from an MMS report, “[S]ince 1969, before Deepwater Horizon, only some three blowouts have occurred . . . all in other parts of the world, not the Gulf.” Judge Feldman concluded, “On the record now before the Court, the defendants have failed to cogently reflect the decision to issue a blanket, generic, indeed punitive, moratorium with the facts developed during the thirty-day review. The plaintiffs have established a likelihood of successfully showing that the Administration acted arbitrarily and capriciously in issuing the moratorium.” The foundation law at issue in this challenge is the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) [PL 83-212]. The sad reality in such circumstances, oil exploration companies have already begun pulling out of the Gulf due simply to the legal / governmental uncertainty. While this civil case attempts to reconcile the issues without amplified economic impact to the region, the aftermath of the Deepwater Horizon disaster will have extended collateral damage far beyond the environmental consequences. While not directly involved in this case, an old law – Merchant Marine Act of 1920 (AKA Jones Act) [PL 66-261] – has adversely and detrimentally impacted the swiftness and capacity of the containment response and should be repealed in part to allow more energetic reactions to such accidents. I’m just sayin’.

The New York Times’ Room for Debate blog asked a relevant question regarding the responsibility and accountability of parents. Two Harvard Medical School professors were recently arrested when teenagers were found drinking alcohol at their daughter’s graduation party.
“Should Parents Be Jailed When Kids Drink?”
http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/17/should-parents-be-jailed-when-kids-drink/?ex=1292731200&en=f90b303371283817&ei=5087&WT.mc_id=NYT-E-I-NYT-E-AT-0623-L17
An interesting and appropriate question, if I do say so. As much as I have harped upon parental accountability, I have no choice but to answer: yes, emphatically. Yet, in a society that finds it somehow extraordinarily difficult to hold intoxicated adult citizens accountable for their actions, it will be even harder to hold parents accountable in such circumstances. Here is a classic case of dichotomy – we want it both ways, and neither way at the same time. We seek to hold bartenders accountable for patron intoxication on their premises. We seek to hold companies accountable for contamination at their facilities or by their products. Children must learn there are consequences to their actions, and if parents are not willing to teach their children discipline and respect, then let them contemplate the error of their ways with a few days in jail. It will only take a few, good, public examples to get the message through to the root of the issue. So, what say you?

When the Supremes announced they would hear arguments in a peculiar Fourth Amendment case, I read the decision under appeal – Quon v. Arch Wireless, Inc. [9CCA 07-55282 (2008)] [418]. The 9th Circuit recognized the significance of the case and took the conservative position of protecting the individual’s rights. The Supremes have now rendered their opinion – Ontario v. Quon [560 U.S. ___ (2010); no. 08-1332]. Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the decision for a unanimous Court. He acknowledged, “The Court must proceed with care when considering the whole concept of privacy expectations in communications made on electronic equipment owned by a government employer.” They chose not to take the broader, unqualified employer, which suggests they want to the law to evolve a little further before they make a more definitive position. Of significance, Tony noted, “Because the search was motivated by a legitimate work-related purpose, and because it was not excessive in scope, the search was reasonable under the approach of the O'Connor plurality. {citing O'Connor v. Ortega [480 U.S. 709, at 726 (1987)]} The Court concluded, “The search was reasonable, and the Court of Appeals erred by holding to the contrary. Petitioners did not violate Quon's Fourth Amendment rights.” The Court clearly and emphatically made the correct decision under the law. I must add that Ontario [California] Police Sergeant Jeff Quon abused the assets and privileges provided by the city – his employer. I would have a different opinion if his personal use did not cost the city money, but that is not the case here. The issue of an employees “expectation of privacy” remains still largely and inadequately defined.

News from the economic front:
-- Chancellor of the Exchequer George [Gideon Oliver] Osborne, MP, presented the British government’s emergency budget plan that among other initiatives applies a bank levy on domestic lenders and the U.K. operations of overseas banks. The levy is expected to generate £2B (US$2.95B) a year once implemented. The plan aims to cut government borrowing from 10% of GDP to 1% within five years by means of unspecified spending cuts as well as raising the national sales tax, or VAT, to 20% from 17.5%. France and Germany reportedly have plans for a similar bank levy.
-- U.S. existing-home sales declined 2.2% in May from the previous month despite the influence of a fading government tax credit. The decline followed two consecutive months of increases. The median price for an existing home was $179,600 in May, up 2.7% from a year earlier.
-- The Federal Reserve Board downgraded their outlook for the U.S. economy, indicating that short-term interest rates could remain at near zero until next year and using more tentative language on the strength of the recovery compared with their previous meeting almost two months ago. The central bankers noted how financial conditions had become less supportive of economic growth. The New York Times reported that Kansas City Fed President Thomas Hoenig cast the lone dissenting vote, continuing to oppose the Fed's use of “extended period” in forecasting the outlook for rates.
-- The Commerce Department reported new home sales fell 33% in May from a month earlier to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 300,000 units. That was the slowest sales pace on records dating back to 1963.
-- The G20 countries ended their two-day Toronto summit meeting after agreeing to the objectives of cutting government deficits in half by 2013 and stabilizing the ratio of public debt to Gross Domestic Product by 2016. Canada's Prime Minister Stephen [Joseph] Harper had proposed the targets. The Obama administration expressed concerns that reducing spending too quickly might set back the fragile global recovery. Attempts to endorse the European (British) bank levy to pay for the financial bailouts failed.

Comments and contributions from Update no.444:
Comment to the Blog:
“The latest figure to come out in the Deepwater Horizon disaster is 100,000 barrels per day. That one's probably overstated to some degree; it's a worst-case figure from an internal BP document. All the same, the current "probably reliable" figure, 60,000 barrels a day, is 12 times the original figure promoted by BP and the non-regulators.
“The thorough technical examination you seek is almost certainly being obstructed by those with criminal and civil liability, surely including those who were hired to regulate the corporations. Two months to delete files and shred papers will have its effect. The containment and cleanup efforts are made difficult by the unprecedented scope of the release, the different ecology of the shores and oceans affected versus the Exxon Valdez spill, and the utter lack of relevant planning and regulation. I am in a college environmental science class right now. While the spill makes for fascinating discussions, my clear impression is that the professor is out of his depth when considering what to do.
“The investigation into the Polish Air Force crash stands a better chance of producing valid results, given the recency of the event, flight data recorders, and the comparatively small numbers of people involved.
“Northern Ireland provides yet another example of my statement that, ‘Nobody wants to be a conquered nation.’ England continues to pay the price of becoming Great Britain, even in her “home” territory. The US would do well to take a lesson from her mother country.
“As with you, I pay my taxes. My bank (located right here in Ohio, not in Switzerland) can release any information it has to the IRS. And I believe that if the wealthy paid even the small percentage of their income that's still due in taxes (after all the tax cuts for them), that would help with the deficit.
“While the Carr v. United States decision raises a variety of legal issues, the most disturbing to me is the ex post facto application. If some sick faction can take over Congress in the future and outlaw what I can legally do today, we're essentially doomed as a free nation. Of course, I share your concern with lifelong punishment and your desire for a modern-era debate about sex laws in general, but the precedent of an ex post facto law strikes an extremely broad and deeply disturbing note. Could it become illegal next year to have owned a pit bull puppy this year?”
My reply to the Blog:
Yes, various news agencies reported on a leaked, internal, BP memorandum (prior to the accident) that projected the worst case leak rate at that well of 100Kbpd. Unfortunately, many other talking heads have taken that as confirmation of BP’s obfuscation and dishonesty regarding the early leak rate estimates. I do not see it the same way. While leak rate is important from a containment / recovery response perspective, it does little to alter the effort to plug the well.
Deletion of files has rarely, if ever, worked and usually makes legal matters far worse than would otherwise be the case. I suspect BP’s corporate lawyers long ago directed quarantine of all communications associated with the Deepwater Horizon operation in anticipation of an inevitable investigation, litigation and orders for discovery.
You may be correct regarding the probability of success relative to an aircraft versus deepwater oil rig accidents. I am not familiar with data recovery in the latter circumstance, but I suspect it is similar if not far more sophisticated than aircraft flight and voice recorders . . . but I could be wrong.
You may well be correct regarding the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland, as well as the United States, Palestine, and all the others. My question remains: how far back do we take things – a decade, a century, a millennium, beyond recorded history?
I’m with you on the wealthy & taxes. Despite my conflicted opinion, I am glad the USG is pursuing those citizens who have avoided their taxes, no matter how wealthy they are. Yet, then, Marc Rich managed a unique solution to his tax evasion problems. It has been a very long slog overcoming decades of Swiss banking secrecy.
My point precisely, regarding Carr. We must defend freedom even for those who least deserve our efforts, because freedom is fragile. “Some sick faction” . . . indeed! It can happen oh so easily. Make ready . . . Semper Fidelis.
. . . a follow-up comment:
“I will let most of this discussion rest here, but I do want to enlarge on one idea.
“My point regarding the ‘United’ Kingdom is not about right or wrong or about trying to right past wrongs, but about the long-lasting attitudes of conquered people. Great Britain is long past conquest of the British Isles but is still paying a price for having done so. The recurring notion in the United States that our conquests or attempts at conquest will ever be welcomed in the target nations contradicts the history of conquest in general dating back to at least the Romans.”
. . . my follow-up reply:
I think I see your point . . . all people inherently want to be free; no one wants to be “conquered.” I think most folks in the modern era recognize the need to embrace disaffected people. We see that same phenomenon in this Grand Republic, and have seen versions throughout our history. I do not like to see marriages fail and I do not like to see nations fail either.
Are you just making an observation regarding the United Kingdom, or do you have a recommendation regarding the future of the UK?
. . . round three:
“The UK has made their bed and must lie in it. My question is whether we join them.”
. . . my reply to round three:
Excellent question . . . worthy of cogitation and contemplation. As I recall, we faced that very question 149 years ago. I thought we resolved it four bloody years later. However, stress on the fabric of this Grand Republic in recent years suggests the question may be rising again. I do not support the dissolution of the United Kingdom, and I certainly do not support it for the United States of America. Yes, there are disenfranchised groups within the U.S. We should reach out to embrace them, without sacrificing our identity, traditions and laws.
. . . round four:
“Your responses confuse me. I am discussing what happens to a nation that militarily conquers another. Internal issues can be another discussion. The British today continue to pay the price, in apologies and other ways, of having conquered Ireland and numerous other areas three to four hundred years ago. The United States continues to pay in lives for having militarily conquered Iraq, as well as paying in money, manpower and prestige and time for having conquered or interfered in such places as Eastern Europe, the Korean peninsula and the Philippines. Military conquests cost the winner nearly as much as the loser in the long term. In the cases of Germany and Japan (World War II), probably more. The US has higher military expenditures than the rest of the world combined. Did we win all those wars? Really?”
. . . my reply to round four:
I did not intend confusion or obfuscation.
To my knowledge of history, the last time the U.S. military was involved in conquest was the Spanish-American War of 1898, and that can be seriously argued to the contrary. I continue to struggle with the accusation that the U.S. (and its allies) “conquered” Iraq, or even intended to conquer.
I will be the first to admit that our civilian leaders, including our vaunted Congress, have misused and abused the professional military.
Yes, the U.S. military has won wars. I will respectfully contend that the military has not lost any wars. The country has lost wars. Our civilian elected leaders have pulled the trigger prematurely and inappropriately; that is not the fault of the military.
The United Kingdom took longer to form than the United States.
England became a unified state in 927 AD.
England and Wales joined in 1284.
England and Scotland united in 1707.
Great Britain and Ireland joined by the Union Act of 1801.
Force of arms diminished as humanity matured, but there is no question of the blood spilt as the union progressed for the United Kingdom, just as it did for the United States. There is no denial that conquest has played directly in the birth of nations. I freely acknowledge those facts. However, I keep returning to the question: how far back do we go to undo ancient conquest and injustice?
Perhaps another way to approach these lofty questions is by inversion. Let us undo all conquest, all injustice, all wrongs done by man to man. Let us go back 50,000 years when modern humans walked the planet. The lowest common denominator is the individual human or maybe the family tribe. Would it be better to just be individuals with no nations, no governments, no laws? I continue to struggle with where do we draw the line?
Perhaps what you are trying to say is all human beings should be respected as equals. When one person, group or faction is disrespected, then disenfranchisement and hostility ensues. If that is the case, then we are in complete agreement.

Another contribution:
“I totally agree with you on the oil gush in the Gulf. Fix it first, then get into an criminal prosecution if needed. Obama's handling of this has been abysmal. Again, we see what happens when someone with no leadership experience whatsoever has to oversee a crisis. He thinks all he has to do is sound like he's tough and people will think he's actually doing something. When Teddy Roosevelt said he was gonna kick some ass, you believed him. Obama says it, and I start laughing. Don't talk the talk if you can't walk the walk. If you ask me, this guy just likes the perks of being President and doesn't want the responsibility that comes with the office. And now, Obama and the numbnuts in his administration are suing my state over our new illegal immigration bill. We see where the President's loyalties truly lie. He is more interested in protecting the rights of lawbreakers from other countries and in kissing up to Mexico's hypocritical president than in protecting the citizens of his own country. Right now I have nothing but disdain for the Federal Government and I hope Governor Jan Brewer tells Obama and that tool Eric Holder to take their lawsuit and shove it where the sun doesn't shine. We're doing the job they refuse to do. To hell with Obama and to hell with his whole friggin' Administration that doesn't give a damn about the American public.
“There. Now I feel a little better with that off my chest.”
My response:
You are welcome to vent anytime you wish about anything you want.
As I have said many times, I am not quite so hard on Barack. I think he is better than many are willing to give him credit.
History shall judge his performance as it does all presidents.
He shall have a significant test today when he meets with Stan McChrystal.

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

Update no.444

Update from the Heartland

No.444

14.6.10 – 20.6.10

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

To all,
The follow-up news items:
-- The drama unfolding in the aftermath of the Deepwater Horizon oil well blowout and subsequent sinking of the rig [442] is so disappointing on so many levels that defy succinct, concise writing. President Obama managed to convince BP’s Chairman to set aside US$20B for claims, to be administered by an independent person; one side screams not enough, while the other side accuses the President of shaking down BP. Indications are beginning to emerge that suggest at a minimum complacency, but more likely negligence or even malfeasance. My opinion remains unchanged to date – the Deepwater Horizon catastrophe is an engineering event that must be stabilized while a thorough, technical examination is conducted. More efficient containment and clean-up efforts are warranted as well as prompter, more generous claims adjudication for those affected by the massive oil leak. There is plenty of time for criminal prosecution, should it become evident.
-- Information continues to trickle out of the investigation into the crash of the Polish Air Force Tu-154 on approach to Smolensk that killed the Polish president and other leaders [434]. Apparently, a second as yet unidentified person was in the cockpit during the final minutes of the flight. The latest information cannot be placed in context without all the other flight data. I remained convinced that we shall eventually know what happened.

On Tuesday, Prime Minister Cameron offered an extraordinary apology for the violent clash between British troops and unarmed demonstrators in Londonderry, Northern Ireland, on 30.January.1972 – known as Bloody Sunday. Thirteen died that day. The event sparked three decades of bitter and sectarian strife in Northern Island and became one of the most notorious single events in the history of the Troubles, which began in 1963 and claimed more than 3,600 lives. Mr. Cameron pronounced the tragic event was “both unjustified and unjustifiable.” He said, “On behalf of our country, I am deeply sorry. What happened should never, ever have happened.”

The Swiss Parliament’s National Council voted 81-61 (58) to approve a treaty with the U.S. that will turn over thousands of files on suspected tax cheats to U.S. authorities. Technical details remain to be worked out and the proposal may still be put to the Swiss public in a referendum before it finally becomes law. I am fairly certain Americans who have taken advantage of Swiss banking secrecy laws have been and are looking for alternatives to hide their money. I have mixed opinions regarding this whole challenge to Swiss banking laws. The opinion that prevails . . . if an American citizen has nothing to hide, then there should be no problems; however, if he does, then I say good, let him feel the full weight of American jurisprudence. I pay my taxes. Massive wealth does not entitle any other citizen to avoid paying their fair share. Further, if any of those funds are ill-gotten gains, then I want the USG to hunt them down and render them impotent.

This week’s judicial reading was Carr v. United States [560 U.S. ___ (2010); no. 08-1301] – an appeal from the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. In 2003, Thomas Carr, 47, was accused of improperly touching a 14-year-old girl in Alabama. In May 2004, Carr pleaded guilty in state court to first-degree sexual abuse. He was paroled a few months later, and a few months after that, he moved back to his home state of Indiana. Carr was involved in a fight in 2007. Local police searched his record. A zealous federal prosecutor charged him with violation of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), which was signed into law by President George W. Bush as part of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 [PL 109-248] [441] on 27.July.2006. The Supremes avoided the constitutionality of the law and even drew up short of the ex post facto clause of the Constitution [Article I, Section 10, Clause 1]. The Court’s ruling centered on the tense of one word in the law – travel. The law uses present tense, while the prosecutor applied it retrospectively, i.e., past tense. The Court overturned Carr’s conviction and appeals court affirmation. As a point of tangent curiosity, Associate Justice Alito wrote the dissenting opinion, to which Justices Thomas and Ginsburg joined – an odd combination of judicial philosophy – and, they liberally interpreted the law discounting the majority’s focus on verb tense, as they extended SORNA to all “sex offenders.” My interest in this case grows from the very liberal interpretation of the law by the prosecutor and the Court’s dissenters. I have so many broader societal questions. Why are “sex offenders” publicly branded with a large, scarlet “SO” tattooed on their forehead? Forever stigmatized for their prior offense, for which they have paid their statutory debt to society. In essence, the practical reality and consequence is the branded citizen can never be rehabilitated and return to good citizenship. Such conduct on our part is the antithesis of the principles that created this Grand Republic. From a citizenship perspective, I worry about projecting moral values into the private domain, however I am far more concerned with prosecutorial overzealousness and over-extension of the law by liberal interpretation. After the travesty of Comstock [560 U.S. ___ (2010); no. 08-1224] [441], I return to the same questions. Why are there sex crimes? Why is sex a crime? Why isn’t violence upon another person whether it involves a sexual dimension the crime? Making sex a crime adds an emotional factor to what should be a simple question of fact – did the perpetrator commit an act of violence or injury upon another person or property? It seems to me, sex as a factor in crime is an antiquated holdover from the days of yore when women and children were simple property. Let us grow up and mature as a society.

News from the economic front:
-- The British government’s Financial Services Authority announced a restructuring of the country's bank-regulatory system that will consolidate power within the Bank of England. The FSA will be divided into three new agencies, including a bank-regulating subsidiary within the central bank. The UK’s Chancellor of the Exchequer Gideon George Oliver Osborne proclaimed the long-awaited changes as “a new system of regulation that learns the lessons of the greatest banking crisis in our lifetime.” We shall see.

Comments and contributions from Update no.443:
“The Saudis immediately denied having given permission for Israeli overflights for an Iranian strike. This story has periodically popped up in the news, usually from the London Times, which is owned by Rupert Murdoch. The Saudis would have a lot of internal political problems if they allowed overflights; the ruling House of Saud might be overthrown. This is probably disinformation by the Israelis. Remember that at about the same time, there were stories, again from the Times, about Israeli submarines in Iranian waters. Purportedly, an IDF-Navy submarine is going to be permanently stationed in the Persian Gulf-- an interesting tactical and logistical problem. Again, the veracity of this has to be questioned.”
My response:
I re-read the 2009 article . . . interesting. My initial reaction was . . . oh my, who would leak such information? The Israelis would want such implicit sanction kept highly secret . . . even until well after such a strike. The Saudis certainly would not want their complicity made public, even if it could be easily deduced. Who would be served by such pre-strike disclosure? Hmmmm . . . let’s see . . . someone, or group of someones, with access to such information and a vested interest in closing that particular door . . . even if they were only guessing. Of course the veracity of the Saudi-Israeli “deal” should be questioned, just as we should question the veracity of the Islamic Republic of Iran’s claims of peaceful intent.
I want President Obama to be successful at stopping the Iranian nuclear weapons development program and capability before they detonate their first device. I truly want to congratulate him, and Secretary Clinton, and you, and all the others working to prevent proliferation of nuclear weapons and nuclear material, especially for state-sponsors of terrorism like the IRI.
. . . round two:
“This is from Pat Lang's blog- he is retired Army colonel who was the head of humint at DIA for the Mid-East, he is an Arabic speaker, and was the first professor of Arabic at West Point. He has also worked closely with Israeli military and intel folks. Link to his site: http://turcopolier.typepad.com/ I think you would enjoy his blog.
“His comments are below the dotted line. I think most real experts are of the opinion that Israel would have a problem in making a successful air strike. They would have a hard time making one strike and their capability of making subsequent missions is very questionable. Also recon for BDA and other logistic factors are considered nil. Also, the Iranians aren't dumb, they recall the previous strike on the Iraqi reactor and have dispersed their assets. It would be difficult for US to take out their nuclear sites. And for the Israelis to use nukes to take out the sites would be a total disaster.
_________________________________________
“Saudi Arabia has conducted tests to stand down its air defences to enable Israeli jets to make a bombing raid on Iran's nuclear facilities, The Times can reveal.
“In the week that the UN Security Council imposed a new round of sanctions on Tehran, defence sources in the Gulf say that Riyadh has agreed to allow Israel to use a narrow corridor of its airspace in the north of the country to shorten the distance for a bombing run on Iran.
“To ensure the Israeli bombers pass unmolested, Riyadh has carried out tests to make certain its own jets are not scrambled and missile defence systems not activated. Once the Israelis are through, the kingdom's air defences will return to full alert.”
Tomlinson
-----------------------------------------
“If this were true, and the plan were executed, the Saudis would pay a very high price in the Islamic World. The ‘legitimacy’ of Al-Saud rule in the land of the emergence of Islam would be gone. It has always been a bit shaky. The reaction of the armed forces of Pakistan is incalculable in such a situation, and they ARE the Islamic nuclear power. And what would Israel's air force accomplish in such an attack with conventional weapons? Can Israel be this foolish? Are the Saudis equally foolish? I think not.”
pl
. . . my response to round two:
I would agree with Pat Lang. There are many dimensions to this issue. However, the question is whether the House of al-Saud feels a greater threat from the Islamic Republic of Iran or Muslim backlash over an implied action (or inaction in this case)? The other wild card in this scenario, at least at present, would be Iraq and U.S. Nonetheless, I would not underestimate the ingenuity and focus of the Israeli Air Force. I would also not underestimate the performance of Mossad in this instance.
. . . round three:
“Here is a report on one of the ‘war games’ played out earlier this year. I understand that our people are dubious of Israel's chances in an air strike and are very concerned about the consequences thereof. And at best, an air strike would set back Iran's suspected quest for a bomb, not eliminate it.”
[The referenced report (article):]
“War game shows how attacking Iran could backfire”
by Warren P. Strobel
McClatchy Newspapers
Posted on Sunday, February 21, 2010
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/02/21/87061/war-game-shows-how-attacking-iran.html
. . . my response to round three:
Could be realistic? Might not be? Interesting, so let’s freeze any threat of military action and pretend diplomacy is going to convince the IRI to abandon its nuclear weapons and uranium enrichment programs. Also interesting the war games identified what would not work, and did not offer even a hint of what might work. Is there anyone who thinks a nuclear IRI would be good for world peace? . . . well except the clerics of the IRI? As with most things, I am not so interested in what won’t work, rather far more intrigued by what might work. We shall see.

Another contribution:
“Glad you escaped what so many others in that whole part of the country did not. One thing we for sure haven't figured out yet is how to control weather.
“I agree with you on your perceptions about freedom and it's limits lying between the two extremes you mention. Respect the personage and property of others or you go outside the boundaries of exercising your own freedoms.
“I too believe the Supreme Court majority got it wrong in the case you mentioned, and agree with Justice Sotomayer's dissenting opinion. I think the decision sets a dangerous precedent, and hope something soon will overturn it. As she said, and you agreed, it was not necessary, but it may well have far reaching implications.
“Good blog this week!”
My reply:
We have gone way too far down the road of attempting to legislate private morality. It will NEVER be successful in a free society. Either we are free, or we are not; there is no in between.
The Roberts Court has been making me more nervous with virtually every decision. They are quite comfortable enhancing the power of the Federal government over the states and over the rights of individual citizens; and then, they claim to be “traditionalists” or “strict constructionists.” I truly believe the Founders & Framers would be gobsmacked at how easily we have given up slivers of our most fundamental rights – rights they sacrificed their blood and treasure to secure for us.
But, hey, that’s just me.

A different contribution:
“‘Deluge?’ ‘rising’ water? Kansas? Isn't this where I came into this movie about 15 years ago? You need to find a home on high ground Sir! Enough of this riverside living.
“Glad it wasn't as bad as 15 years ago.”
My response:
Indeed! You got that right. We’re on the largest lake in the Cowskin Creek watershed . . . should we ever make the national news like Oklahoma City did. Turns out, the water level crested well below the house. I was just a worry-wart . . . defender of the realm ‘n’ all. Jeanne went to bed with the dogs at 23:00; I stayed up until 04:00, checking the water levels every 15 minutes. Not the same conditions or situation as the big house 15 years ago. Like Jeanne said, folks live in California with earthquakes & brushfires, or in Florida with hurricanes and oil spills . . . so who are we to complain about a little high water.

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

Update no.443

Update from the Heartland

No.443

7.6.10 – 13.6.10

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

To all,

My apologies for the late publication of this week’s Update. Sunday evening, night, and Monday morning were spent defending our home against the deluge of stationary front thunderstorms and the rising lake. The water line approached closer than I was comfortable, but did not reach our protective barriers. It was a very long night, with a couple of hours sleep, and then off to work Monday morning. I trust you will forgive my tardiness.

The follow-up news items:
-- The United Nations Security Council ended diplomatic efforts to resolve the crisis over the Iranian nuclear program and imposed a fourth round of sanctions in a seemingly futile endeavor to persuade Tehran to stop enriching uranium [419/20]. The new measures impose a stronger arms embargo; this time banning several types of heavy conventional weapons, as well as other high-tech equipment. Security Council Resolution 1929 passed with 12 votes in favor and two against – Brazil and Turkey (Lebanon abstained) – and joins five (5) earlier sanctions. A few weeks back, I noted the nuclear deal between the IRI, Turkey and Brazil [440] – odd participants. Now, we understand. Then, we were reminded that a year ago The Times [of London] reported that Saudi Arabia agreed to turn a blind eye to over-flights of its territory by the Israeli Air Force should the Israelis decide to strike Iranian nuclear sites, which probably means the Saudis have passed their threshold of tolerance. When will Europe and the United States pass theirs?

An opinion in my local newspaper:
“What are limits of freedom?”
Daniel M. Kirkhuff
Wichita Eagle
Posted on Tuesday, June 08, 2010
http://www.kansas.com/2010/06/08/1349116/what-are-limits-of-freedom.html
. . . instigated my letter to the editor:
Interesting question: What are the limits of freedom?
Daniel Kirkhuff concludes, “Legislators, administrators and judges make the best decisions they can, but decisions should not be based only on the possibility that someone's freedom will be curtailed.”
I respectfully and strongly disagree . . . at least with the second half of his sentence.
Freedom is very precious. The Founders of this Grand Republic sacrificed their blood and fortunes to establish a nation of citizens, who were free to enjoy their individual choices for their “Life, Liberty and pursuit of Happiness” – not the choices of the King, or any government, or even the collective.
To take Mr. Kirkhuff’s point, there are limits to freedom. Our challenge is where are those limits, as he asks?
Absolute freedom is anarchy. The absence of freedom is totalitarian autocracy. The limits of our freedom lie somewhere between those two extremes. The question is where do we draw the line of those limits?
It seems to me that the criterion for those limits should be respect for the person and property of others. Thus, any conduct – private or public – that causes injury to another person’s body or property must be wrong. Unfortunately, too many of our legislators, administrators and judges impose their values, their beliefs, and their choices on all citizens. My choices for my life, for my body and mind, for my death, for my pleasure, for my family, are my choices and should not be intruded upon by other citizens or any government. We must return to the principles of the Founders and Framers of the Constitution, and return the freedom the Founders fought for . . . for We, the People.
The only time an individual citizen’s freedom should be curtailed is to protect the person or property of another citizen. We must not impose our choices on other citizens, no matter how righteous we may believe our values are or how much we believe all citizens should embrace our values. Freedom is freedom; anything less is not.

The quadrennial championship of “The Beautiful Game” began in the Republic of South Africa. We watched the United States team manage a 1-1 tie of England in the Group C opener. Both goals came on mistakes, and both teams looked rather sluggish. We also watched the Group D match between Germany and Australia. The question was asked: was Germany that good, or was Australia that bad? My answer: more likely the former as I saw it.

This session of the Roberts Court seems to have focused a lot of attention on backing away from the citizen. The latest challenge – Berghuis v. Thompkins [560 U.S. ____ (2010); no. 08-1470] – does not bode well for the citizen. Van Chester Thompkins was convicted of shooting two men outside a mall in Southfield, Michigan, on 10.January.2000, killing one and wounding the other. Two Southfield detectives interrogated Thompkins. The suspect was read his now famous Miranda warning and chose to remain silent – neither invoking nor waiving his Fifth Amendment right against being “compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.” Nearly three hours into his interrogation, Detective Helgert asked Thompkins, “Do you believe in God?”
Thompkins made eye contact with Helgert and answered, “Yes,” as his eyes reportedly welled up with tears.
The detective then asked, “Do you pray to God?”
“Yes.”
“Do you pray to God to forgive you for shooting that boy down?”
Thompkins answered, “Yes,” and looked away.
Thompkins refused to make a written confession, and the interrogation ended about 15 minutes later. That implicit confession was used at trial and helped convict Thompkins. The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the use of Thompkins’ confession. The Supremes reversed the Appeals Court on a narrow 5-4 ruling and set a new, narrower standard, requiring a suspect to specifically and precisely invoke his right to remain silent or his right to counsel during interrogation. Associate Justice Sonja Sotomayor, writing for the dissent, observed, “The Court also concludes that a suspect who wishes to guard his right to remain silent against such a finding of ‘waiver’ must, counterintuitively, speak – and must do so with sufficient precision to satisfy a clear-statement rule that construes ambiguity in favor of the police.” As she concludes, “Today's decision turns Miranda upside down. Criminal suspects must now unambiguously invoke their right to remain silent – which, counterintuitively, requires them to speak. At the same time, suspects will be legally presumed to have waived their rights even if they have given no clear expression of their intent to do so. Those results, in my view, find no basis in Miranda or our subsequent cases and are inconsistent with the fair-trial principles on which those precedents are grounded. Today's broad new rules are all the more unfortunate because they are unnecessary to the disposition of the case before us. I respectfully dissent.” Unfortunate, indeed! A cardinal rule of English and American common law has been the accused’s presumption of innocence until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt before a jury of our peers. Similarly, the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects the right of any citizen against self-incrimination. In essence, these rights protect each citizen from the overwhelming power of the State, and place the burden on the State to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt by a preponderance of factual evidence. By the Thompkins ruling, the Supremes once against enhanced the power of the Federal government and superseded the judicial authority of the states. It is all too easy for each of us to say these decisions do not affect me, my life or my family, after all I do not break the law; therefore, I do not care how the State interrogates criminals. The evidence without Thompkins’ implicit confession was sufficient to convict him of the crime he committed. As Sotomayor said, the Court did not have to constrict Miranda, but they did.

News from the economic front:
-- Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke warned, “The federal budget appears to be on an unsustainable path”; yet, he also defended the government’s deficit spending as necessary to ease the recession. Ben reiterated his view that American economic recovery would likely be slow and painful for many Americans.
-- The Wall Street Journal’s survey of economists suggests a slow but steady growth in the U.S. economy through the middle of 2011, despite recent turmoil in European debt markets. Unemployment is currently at 9.7%, and forecast to be at 8.6% by the end of December 2011. Interestingly, the economists see a 75% chance that Greece will be unable to pay its debts, and they see a 1-in-3 chance the euro zone will eventually splinter. I surely hope they are wrong.
-- The U.S. trade deficit widened slightly in April to US$40.29B as crude oil imports hit the highest level in over a year. Exports and imports both declined from the previous month.
-- New jobless benefit claims fell to just 3,000 in the latest week, indicating the labor market recovery remains sluggish.
-- The Commerce Department reported retail sales fell in May (-1.2%) from the previous month, as consumers pulled back their spending on things from cars to clothing – the first and biggest decline since September 2009 (-2.2%). Excluding auto and gas sales, retail sales slipped 0.8%, the largest drop since 1% in March 2009.

The Blago Scandal [365]:
Blago’s long-awaited graft trial has begun. Hopefully, the process will not take long, and we can get him off the media stage and into a prison cell where he belongs.

Comments and contributions from Update no.442:
Comment to the Blog:
“I will disagree with your complaint on the timing of the criminal investigation. In order to recover evidence and get good eyewitness testimony, investigations must begin as soon as possible. This applies all the more in a high-profile situation, where the culprits can plainly see their interest in concealing the facts. Besides that, justice should be reasonably swift. The Bhopal tragedy took place the night of December 2-3, 1984. Today, June 7, 2010, seven men were finally convicted in that incident. I have no wish for a similar wait in the Deepwater Horizon case. I see this as a very different situation than an air crash; there are too many aggrieved parties and too many potential VIP malefactors for the comparison to hold up. I hope, however, that those responsible for regulating BP and Deepwater Horizon will be included in the scope of the investigation. Investigating Halliburton is probably too much to hope for and, as much as I dislike and mistrust Dick Cheney, Halliburton probably does not bear primary responsibility for this one.
“I have no sympathy to waste on the government of Israel. The world has generously given them a ‘homeland’ and they demonstrate their lack of gratitude by attacking their neighbors for the ensuing sixty years and counting. Helen Thomas's idea of sending them back where they came from is impractical, but let's not make heroes of these people.
“I have often wondered when the Supreme Court will decide that something constitutes ‘cruel and unusual’ punishment. The waiting continues.”
My response to the Blog:
I use my experience with aircraft investigations as the foundation of my opinion regarding the criminal prosecutorial process while we are trying to determine the root cause. As with all events, we start from a blank slate, collect facts, inquire to develop details and fill in blanks, and then hopefully construct a clear image of the root cause of any failure or event. I cannot tell you how many times we have folks refuse to cooperate or tell us false information. When we do come across a pilot or mechanic who tells us the truth, we are impressed by the rarity. The last thing I want to hear is invocation of 5th Amendment rights. I am far more interested in finding out why something happened, so we can improve the engineering and hopefully prevent future occurrences. Prosecution interferes with and delays progress and improvement. Accidents happen. I am far more interested in permanently plugging all the leaks and getting the blowout preventor back to the surface, so it can be carefully analyzed. We can do far more for the future of mankind by finding out what went wrong and preventing future events. Whether we like it or not, the Deepwater Horizon event may well have been a dreadful accident. Pilots make mistakes. Drill rig operators make mistakes.
We have discussed Israel many times. I think we understand and appreciate each others opinions. We can certainly take the Helen Thomas approach, after all Israel did not exist until 1948. If so, how far back do we go? How far back do we go in this country? How about Europe, Africa, Asia . . . where do we stop? Virtually all of Israel’s neighbors threatened to drive all Jews back into the sea at one time or another; a few still do – Hamas, Hezbollah and the IRI among those. Who has Israel threatened? Who has Israel vowed to obliterate? Security is one of the most basic primal needs. We are not going to undo history. Our task today is finding the compromises necessary to live in peace and prosper.
Well, in Graham, the Supreme decided that life without parole is “cruel and unusual” punishment for a non-homicidal, youthful offender (18yo). They are moving toward deciding capital punishment is such punishment.
. . . round two:
“My assumption with the Deepwater Horizon investigation is that the engineering/scientific approach that you use with airline accidents will be left to historians, as is usual in high-profile incidents such as this one. The people involved, as with those you have encountered, seek to avoid prison time, large civil suits or loss of good jobs depending on their specific roles in the tragedy. Objective reporting is not a reasonable expectation of people with a great deal at stake.
“I long ago lost interest in the specifics of the Middle East. I could pretty much let the entire crowd go their evolutionary way, killing each other off until a few lucky and peace-minded survivors built something completely different. The Middle East is living proof that "fit for survival" and "fit for combat" are dramatically different things.
“I guess the Graham decision must be counted as progress.”
. . . my round two response:
The common phenomenon is certainly part of my point – self-preservation is a powerful force. My nature – my inclination – is to avoid the blame-game (which is the essence of prosecution) and search for the root cause(s) without emotion or aspersions. We have plenty of time for the blame-game after the situation is contained and the root cause determined. Further, in virtually every accident, there is a chain of pre-cursor events that lead to the final outcome, which means there are often multiple, related causal factors. Regardless, the cows are out of the barn; the deed is done. Moot point now!
If the violence was contained to the Middle East, I would be inclined to agree with you. Unfortunately, their violence has all too often spilled out on the rest of us – al-Qaeda being the popular example. The Middle East is a perfect example of what destruction machismo without rational thought can inflict upon innocent people.
Perhaps the Graham decision is progress. Nonetheless, it is sad commentary on our society.
. . . round three:

“‘My nature – my inclination – is to avoid the blame-game (which is the essence of prosecution) and search for the root cause(s) without emotion or aspersions.’
“This makes you a historian. The odds of the people actually involved in the incident and/or investigation cooperating in such an investigation without emotions or aspersions are about the same as the odds of my winning the grand prize in a multistate lottery. Historians seek to untangle the emotions and aspersions many years after the event, then find the fact in whatever is left, which is as close as we get.”
. . . my response to round three:
Perhaps you are correct.
“I am what I am, and that’s all that I am.”
Regardless, I have investigated hostile participants. Sorting out the wheat from the chaff is possible with focus and concentration on the facts.
As Julius Caesar said, “Iacta alea est.”

Another contribution:
“Good one.
“I agree about parents being responsible for their children. To me that includes parents in absentia. i.e., in a single parent home, the parent who has departed and is taking no part in the raising of a child they produced, is just as liable as the one in the home. Not quite sure about orphans who have been abandoned, possibly abused, who are ‘rescued’ and put in foster homes or adopted. But essentially I believe the new parents are or should be responsible.
My reply:
In the main, any individual who fornicates must be responsible and accountable for their actions, just as should be the case with all our actions. Sex is not some special, protected, class of action. Thus, we are in clear agreement. However, as with all human activities, there are always exceptions and outliers. Orphans, abandoned children, and such may not have parents or traceable parents; for those, we may have no one to hold accountable. I am interested in a clear, emphatic demonstration. Put a bunch of ‘em in prison for a while to contemplate the error of their ways, and physically sterilize a few, so they cannot create another abused or neglected child . . . eventually the message will get through. Do not fornicate without assured protections unless you fully intent to love, cherish, nurture and teach your children properly . . . to be good, law-abiding, peaceful, productive citizens. Frankly, I do not care whether one party or the other was intoxicated, dishonest, or whatever (doesn’t matter) . . . children do NOT spontaneously happen, and it does not matter a hoot what the state of mind or body either participant had at the moment of conception. They are both accountable . . . full stop!
. . . a follow-up query:
“What if a youth has no traceable blood parents, but does have adoptive or at least foster ones. Are they responsible once they have agreed to care for the child?”
. . . and my reply:
Short answer: yes . . . with mitigation. After all, adoptive or foster parents can be and sometimes are abusive, negligent or complacent in raising children. Yet, they say a child’s character is established or set by 5yo, so parental figures after that point should be judged by their actions, rather than the child’s actions. The key is communicating clearly and distinctly to all procreators, parents & future parents, either take proper loving care of your children, or avoid those conditions where you might procreate, or suffer the consequences of penal punishment.

A different contribution:
“The handling of the oil spill in the Gulf boggles my mind. Obama seems more interested in making speeches and trying to sound tough and sympathetic than doing anything in a leadership role. I whole-heartedly agree with you on the criminal investigation aspect. Can we just get the leak stopped first, then do what needs to be done as far as criminal charges go?
“The perception I have is that Obama is just dithering around and not taking this disaster seriously, except when he's in front of the cameras. One report I heard is that there isn't even a command post set up for this. Wouldn't that be the first thing you do? For me, the response should be . . “ 1) Send a team down there (FEMA, USCG, USGS, and whoever else knows about this stuff) to assess the situation.
“ 2) Appoint an overall commander for the disaster, obviously one with experience in this field. He reports directly to the President, that way if he’s running into any bureaucratic BS, the President can pick up the phone, cut through it, and get this guy whatever he needs. Oh yeah, and the President stays out of his way. Micro-management leads to disaster (ask Jimmy Carter).
“ 3) The Vice President can be the liaison with local and state governments to find out their concerns and needs and address them.
“ 4) Once the disaster has been abated, then you can start looking into criminal charges.
“Obama has no leadership skills and is way over his head, and someone better tell him all the pretty words he gets from his teleprompter will not fix this mess or salvage his tumbling popularity.”
My response:
I am not quite so hard on Barack. I like your “send a team” approach. I think that is precisely why the President deployed the Commandant of the Coast Guard to Louisiana, which seems like an extraordinary action to me. I’m just sayin’.

One more thread:
“There may be some criminal malfeasance in false statements related to the papers required for approval for the rig. There are allegations of that so far. Also, there appears to have been some shortcuts or serious omissions taken in procedures that might rise to the level of negligence, which when people are killed, involves negligent homicide. Also, in the Congressional testimony, there may have been some false statements. In case of any of those, I wouldn't call that the 'blame game.' I would think that DOJ would have something in mind when they mention a potential criminal investigation.
“There are some questions BP needs to answer regarding just what happened on the rig. There were a number of BP execs on the rig before the explosion – what were they doing there and how did they get off the rig is one question. Another is, did they have anything to do with procedures being bypassed in the process, which is what some survivors have alleged. BP was purportedly behind schedule and was losing money due to delay - thus was in a hurry to move things along on the drill. Stay tuned.”
My response:
There are many questions BP, Transocean and Halliburton need to answer . . . and they will. I think they will sort this one out. I beg to differ . . . it is the blame-game when we make public statements about criminal investigations before we have the facts to substantiate a criminal act.
As an honorable member of the bar, you know quite well premature charging can compromise pending or future prosecution.
Let’s get the crisis under control, then we can develop the facts, let the chips fall where they may, and then we can prosecute the bastards to the fullest extent of the law . . . and then some. All things in due course!
. . . round two:
“If there is going to be a viable prosecution, the government is going to need to get the facts as soon as possible-- that means talking to witnesses and getting evidence. The longer after an event occurs, the more evidence is lost or compromised. There already are strong indications that criminal conduct occurred- both in the preparative work and paper submissions for the well and in the actual conduct of the drilling. How many weeks have passed since the incident began? They can't wait until the situation is over before they start the investigation-- that could be months. If the government waits to gather evidence and develop leads until perhaps months after an incident occurs, the potential for successful prosecution greatly fails. I think they have been following prosecutorial guidelines and ethics rules about public comments. There can be the acknowledgement /announcement that a criminal case is being undertaken.
“Also, there may have been false statements made in the Congressional testimony, something that members of both parties have alleged.”
. . . to which was added:
“Items like this raise the issue of criminal negligence, if not outright violation of laws.
“A series of internal investigations over the past decade warned senior BP managers that the company repeatedly disregarded safety and environmental rules and risked a serious accident if it did not change its ways. The confidential inquiries, which have not previously been made public, focused on a rash of problems at BP's Alaska oil-drilling unit that undermined the company's publicly proclaimed commitment to safe operations. They described instances in which management flouted safety by neglecting aging equipment, pressured or harassed employees not to report problems, and cut short or delayed inspections in order to reduce production costs. Executives were not held accountable for the failures, and some were promoted despite them.”
. . . my response to round two:
You raise a valid point. I do not know if any USG agency has the mandate to investigation drilling (or mining) accidents like the NTSB does for aviation, rail and maritime events. My assumption until now was MMS had that similar charter, but I do not know for sure. I sure as hell hope and expect some USG agency has been collecting facts from the get-go.
One of the big issues with the TWA 800 investigation was the FBI intrusion at the outset, under the assumption that airliners just don’t explode (therefore, it had to be a terrorist event and thus under FBI primacy). As in the TWA 800 incident and similar to the juxtaposition of intelligence & prosecution, premature criminalization of any accident investigation may irreparably contaminate any safety improvement to be derived from a proper engineering investigation.
An investigation should have started immediately by whatever USG agency is charged with drilling investigations. If there is no agency established by law, then the default organization should be DoJ; if so, then the law must be changed pronto to establish a clear mandate for a singular agency like the NTSB for aviation.
If the public and/or Press accusations of BP executives disregarding safety or prudent operation are evident in the facts, then they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. After all, 11 citizens died and multiple billons of dollars in persistent damage has been and will be done to the local economy of the mid-Gulf Coast and the oil industry. I am not against punishing the perpetrators. I just advocate for actions in their proper place and time. Let’s stop the bleeding before we seek the hangman.

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

Update no.442

Update from the Heartland

No.442

31.5.10 – 6.6.10

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

To all,

Amid the clamorous kerfuffle for President Obama to cry, or stomp his feet, or smack Dr Anthony Bryan “Tony” Hayward, PhD, upside the head to demonstrate his rage, the favorite game of the American Public, Press and politicians jumped to a higher, more precipitous level this week when Attorney General Eric Holder publicly announced the opening of a criminal investigation into the Deepwater Horizon, oil rig disaster. Somehow, in our drive for immediate gratification, we cherish the blame game . . . after all, in every bad event at a personal or national level, someone else must be at fault and criminally liable. Unfortunately, as an engineer, I am far more interested in root cause analysis, i.e., find out exactly what happened. Once the disaster has passed and the recovery is well underway, there will be plenty of time for recriminations and criminal prosecution, given prosecutable offense(s) and sufficient evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, unless the USG is up against some unknown statute of limitations (which I doubt), prosecution should be considered only after the problem has been resolved and root cause has been determined – be it negligence, sabotage or whatever. Such prosecutorial grandstanding for political purposes in the middle of a disaster is more often than not counter-productive and at best distracting. The folks involved are induced to self-protective concern rather than closure. We face this challenge with every aircraft accident.

The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) announced that federal workers can start applying for long-term health-care insurance for their same-sex partners. President Obama signed a memorandum last June extending some benefits for non-heterosexual federal workers, including access to the government's Federal Long Term Care Insurance Program. On Tuesday, OPM essentially broadened the definition of relatives eligible for the program to include same-sex domestic partners of eligible federal workers, U.S. Postal Service workers and federal retirees. Long journeys are accomplished with small steps.

Not hearing any rational defense of Israel amid the cacophony of wailing regarding the pre-dawn boarding of a flotilla of ships from a Turkish NGO, attempting to run the Israeli blockade of Gaza has been nay onto impossible, I feel compelled to offer a solo voice of reason. The whole episode, from the resistance on-board those ships to the street protests in Western cities, has carried the stench of a purposeful, antagonistic, staged event intended to provoke Israel, and embarrass Europe and the United States. This type of provocation bears the earmarks of Hezbollah and Hamas as well as their patron – the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI). The restraint of Israeli naval commandos resulted in more injury for them, but ultimately they enforced the blockade of Gaza. When a warrior warns you that you will be shot if you resist, do not be surprised or complain when you are shot for doing so. The blockade is there for a justifiable reason. Israel has every right to enforce that blockade with force if necessary. The solution is quite simple . . . embrace peace and renounce threats to Israel. Regrettably, the IRI does not want peace, and they will not allow it. They are quite content using the hapless Palestinians as their pawns in the global gamesmanship of Middle Eastern politics. So, the blockade continues.

President Obama nominated Lieutenant General James R. Clapper Jr., USAF (Ret.), to fill the recently vacated post as Director of National Intelligence.

The Supremes heard arguments last Fall on two related cases from Florida, involving sentencing of minors (i.e., less than 18 years old) to life in prison without parole for non-homicidal crimes, against the Eighth Amendment’s “Cruel and Unusual” Punishment Clause. They summarily dismissed the appeal of the companion case – Sullivan v. Florida (08-7621) – with a simple, terse statement – “The writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted.” The other case in the dual was the appeal of Terrance Jamar Graham for the same reason – Graham v. Florida [560 U.S. ___ (2010); no. 08-7412]. Writing for the Court, Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy observed, “Because Florida has abolished its parole system, see Fla. Stat. §921.002(1)(e) (2003), a life sentence gives a defendant no possibility of release unless he is granted executive clemency.” He went on to conclude, “The Eighth Amendment does not foreclose the possibility that persons convicted of nonhomicide crimes committed before adulthood will remain behind bars for life. It does forbid States from making the judgment at the outset that those offenders never will be fit to reenter society.” As is so often the case, the Constitution intentionally leaves the words vague . . . open for interpretation by future generations. Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, as a self-professed traditionalist, correctly states that the Constitution offers no guidance regarding penal limitations, and thus leaves such judgments to the states. Consequently, given Clarence’s logic and reasoning, the states may decide to utilize life-without-parole as an appropriate punishment for armed burglary, or presumably expectorating on public sidewalks, or even masturbation in private. Interesting logic! At the time of the ratification of the Constitution and the Eighth Amendment, the punishment of being hanged, drawn and quartered remained valid in England (it was not prohibited until the Treason Act of 1814 [54 Geo. III c. 146]). The Framers definition of “cruel and unusual” must be bound in that context. To my knowledge, the brutal form of capital punishment was never used in the Colonies or the United States of America, but certainly the Framers were aware of that standard of punishment and sought to distance the new republic from the brutality of the past. Further, they intentionally chose the ambiguous language to allow subsequent citizens to decide. Does “cruel and unusual” have any meaning? If so, then how are we to decide? Do the rights of a citizen have any meaning if a state can choose to impose life without parole for public flatulence? Life without parole means the crime was not serious enough for capital punishment and the judge or jury does not trust a future parole board to decide on the rehabilitative progress of a particular convict. Florida eliminated its parole system with the consequent product being removal of any hope of redemption given a life sentence. The traditionalists, or fundamentalists, or strict constructionists, or whatever term suits their fancy, see the Constitution is pure Federalist terms, i.e., the document solely defines the authority of the Federal government and inversely by reflection the authority of the states. What the so-called traditionalist fail to acknowledge is the Preamble [“We, the People”], the Bill of Rights [guaranteed protections for citizens against the power of the State (Federal, state and local governments)], and specifically the Ninth Amendment [“. . . others retained by the people”]. In debates with the traditionalists, I find it intellectually attractive that they can interpret the Commerce Clause so liberally, expanding the power and reach of the Federal government, and then in the next decision see the Bill of Rights in progressively narrowing terms. In the majority, the Supremes are staunch Federalists with flashes of protecting the freedom of citizens. I am not defending the terribly disrespectful conduct of Terrance Jamar Graham, but I am lauding the small step toward the rights of citizens in Graham. Beyond the law and as you can well guess I cannot miss the opportunity, the Graham case represents a clear demonstration of our failure as a society – to hold parents accountable for the destruction they wrought upon communities by their abuse, neglect and/or indifference to the children they produce. Terrance Graham was at best a neglected child, and probably abused in many ways; recognition does not lessen the seriousness of his crimes against society, but it does get us closer to the root cause of such behavior. If a company or individual poisoned a well, contaminated the environment, or intentionally unleashed a plague on the Earth, would we seek to hold that person accountable and punish them for what they have done to other citizens, property and the environment? Why should we not hold parents who create children who grow to cause comparable destruction upon humanity, accountable for the product of their actions?

As a timely and appropriate punctuation in our examination of the judicial “traditionalists,” I illuminated this Op-Ed column:
“David Souter vs. the Antonin Scalias”
by E.J. Dionne Jr.
Washington Post
Published: Thursday, June 3, 2010
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/02/AR2010060203496.html?wpisrc=nl_opinions

News from the economic front:
-- The U.K.'s Financial Services Authority imposed the largest fine in the market regulator's history – against J.P. Morgan Chase – £33M (US$49M) – for failing to separate client money from the firm's money. In essence, the international bank was gambling with other people’s money without the consent of the investors.
-- The Labor Department reported the U.S. economy added 431,000 jobs in May, however 411,000 were temporary employees for the 2010 Census and inflated the increase. The private sector created just 41,000 jobs after adding 218,000 jobs in April. The unemployment rate, which is calculated using a separate household survey, decreased to 9.7% in May from 9.9% the previous month.

Comments and contributions from Update no.441:
Comment to the Blog:
“We may hope that ‘Don't Ask, Don't Tell’ will be repealed soon. One would think that with an unending and unpopular war, the Defense Department would do what it could for recruiting.
“I have little expertise in aviation, but I will note that if political people caused the disaster by overruling their own experts, that would be business as usual.
“I think the President is at least addressing the public part of the concern with immigration. The long-term issues will probably not receive attention soon. Ironically enough, all the public players are descended from immigrants, many from people who came here before immigration laws screened out the criminals and the mentally ill. Indeed, many of the ‘first families’ of this country came here to avoid prosecution. Most people, though, came to the US to escape the poverty at home. Now they want to shut the door.
“Indefinite detention of anyone in the USA scares me. You and I have discussed in other places how very easy it is to acquire the label ‘sex offender’ in arbitrary fear-based proceedings. Beyond that, if they can detain someone indefinitely, they can find a way to detain anyone indefinitely. This is common in the countries we (the US government) call ‘dictatorships.’
“Seizure of BP's assets is beginning to make sense. One of my sources has pointed out that the usual corporate procedure in the face of serious debt is to reorganize or sell the company to another corporation and skip out on the debt--but not on management pay and bonuses. Unless something prevents it, we can look forward to that with BP.”
My response to the Blog:
Yes, we do hope the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy is repealed. The active duty military leadership is thinking about recruitment, but from the negative perspective, i.e., some citizens will not volunteer because of . . . . I suspect they estimate the negative impact will exceed the positive. I also think they are far more consumed with the potential impact on morale and operational efficiency, i.e., soldiers might be more worried about being groped than taking a bullet from the enemy. I think it is a false worry, but not entirely without merit – some will be so consumed . . . out of fear of the unknown.
Visitors in the cockpit are not uncommon in private, corporate or even charter aircraft. Most pilots handle such distractions appropriately. We do not yet know if direct pressure was applied to the Polish pilot, and even if it was, he should have been experienced enough to ignore it. Pilots also elect to attempt an approach at a destination below minimums with a hope to catch a favorable break. What is truly unusual and unexplainable is why he was so far off the nominal approach line? There are still many aspects of that accident that are quite strange.
Immigration reform is long overdue. I imagine the President & congressional leadership set their agenda – health care reform, financial reform, immigration reform, and maybe political reform. Given the challenges of health care reform, I suspect immigration reform is a bridge too far with the mid-term elections only five months away. I do not think I would give the President even that much credit for his immigration effort to date, but the effort has only just begun. Immigration has been an essential element of this Grand Republic from the days of the Huguenots and Puritans. The issue is NOT immigration, rather it is illegal violators whether visa extenders or border crossers. We cannot ignore the illegal aliens already established in this country. Also, we cannot be the salvation for all the impoverished peoples of the world. We have a long way to go.
That was precisely my worry as I read the Comstock ruling . . . not indefinite detention in toto or in general per se, but rather the application so freely to a “crime” that upsets a politically influential group. In essence, the Supremes opened up indefinite detention to a wide variety of “crimes” and to the whims of the moral projectionists. Indefinite detention has its place – prisoners of war, mentally ill, et cetera – but possession of child pornography? What are they doing? And worse, how far will they go? Will the next target be drug use, abortion, teen sex . . . or the political opposition? You are spot on!
We are a long way from seizure of assets. BP continues to do far more than “required by law,” but there will come a point when the company’s survival may come into view, and that will be when we see push back and the need to consider seizure of assets. We are a long way from that point.
. . . follow-up comment:
“The only follow-up I will do is to the statement, ‘Also, we cannot be the salvation for all the impoverished peoples of the world.’ Historical record goes the other way around. The impoverished peoples of the world have come here and built the railroads, worked the mines and done many other jobs those already present could not or would not do. They continue to perform agricultural jobs, child care, restaurant work, low-end construction and many other jobs that Americans will not take. Whether the wages are illegally low is not a point for them or for their employers. The foreigners of whom I am aware of taking safe, high-paying jobs come here from India (and Russia and a few other places) and work in information technology jobs.”
. . . my follow-up response:
Interesting perspective. So, let us take this discussion to the other extreme.
Why don’t we open our borders to anyone who can find a way into the country? They will gladly take all the entry-level jobs because they pay 10 or more times what they were earning in the little village of their birth. Where is the limit? How many do we welcome into the Grand Republic? 10 million? 100 million? 1 billion? 10 billion? Where is the limit? Is everyone welcome? Workers? Criminals? Freeloaders? Everyone? If there are limits, how do we define them? How do we enforce them?
I’m just askin’?
. . . round two:
[“Interesting question. I favor screening out the criminals and the mentally ill, despite the examples of some of the founders. Beyond that, I don't favor extremes in general. Taking any given discussion to ‘the other extreme’ usually results in two equally ridiculous positions. I'd just like to avoid a serious labor shortage that would result of the attempts to keep out all indigent immigrants were to succeed. The way to build an economy or a company is not by cutting back on resources.”
. . . my round two response:
OK then, I think we agree that completely open or completely closed borders are not tolerable or sustainable conditions, and we must have some controlled filter process for simple visitor entry to full immigration. Like you, I am in favor of worker permits. I think citizens from other countries should be able to come to this country, to work, abide the law, send their income home, or earn the right to become a citizen. If so, then we must have a solid, definitive method to identify and track those who are guests in this country, just like most other countries on the planet do as well. Further, this means preventing uncontrolled access and allowing only purposeful, responsible entry, as well as enforcement of limitations and controls for those who enter illegally or overstay their welcome. Lastly, we must have a humane method of dealing with those already in the country who have not entered properly, to include the fraction of illegal aliens who are persona non grata, i.e., no country wants them. Comprehensive immigration reform must address all elements of the issue.
. . . an Anonymous comment to the Blog on the original post:
“Calvin I agree with about everything you have said but i myself would have worded one issue somewhat stronger then dictatorship.
“The United States is one of the first countries to accuse other countries of being a dictator ship or subjecting the populations to human rights abuses...but look back in history at our past....you are right the Salem witch hunts were one of the events that has happen that bring shame to this once great land...then we have the illegal detention of the Japanese Americans during the war....I also see how what this country is doing to a segment of it population with this Adam Walsh Act is nothing less then what the Nazi's did to the Jews....It truly is scary when a Government can lock a person way for life because they may commit a crime....we just lost another basic constitutional right....innocent till proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.”
. . . my response to the Anonymous Blog contribution:
Salem witch trials (1692) . . . that’s a stretch at best.
The internment of Americans of Japanese descent [by Executive Order 9066] (1942-1944) . . . OK that one is appropriate in this context.

We could add in the Massacre at Wounded Knee [1890] or a myriad of other unjust acts perpetrated by or in the name of the United States of America.
However, come now, as much as I believe the Adam Walsh Act [PL 109-248] has gone too far and the Supreme Court’s Comstock [560 U.S. ___ (2010)] ruling failed to recognize that opinion, comparisons to the Nürnberg Laws [1935] or Endlösung der Judenfrage [1942] are wholly unjustified and otherwise without merit. Since indefinite incarceration for sexual “crimes” as validated by Comstock appears to be the topic at hand, the Adam Walsh Act does have some commonality with the Heritage Laws (1933). Perhaps I am quibbling. Nonetheless, we have again crossed over the line in our endless effort to legitimize our moral beliefs. I’m afraid we shall have to wait for a long time before we regain the freedom we have lost.
“That’s just my opinion, but I could be wrong.”
. . . a follow-up comment back to the Blog:
“I will come back in for one comment about the Salem witch trials and witch hunts in general. Many, perhaps most, of the people killed as witches over a couple of centuries were not in fact witches. And that is one of the central issues in our current prosecution/persecution of people accused of sex crimes. They might not even be guilty of the crimes in question. The fact that Comstock admittedly committed the crime is his case protects none of the people who may follow him.”
. . . along with my follow-up response to the Blog:
First, I did not see the Salem witch trials as the Inquisition in the main; however, in the context of moral projectionist destruction of other citizens, then yes, that sorry episode destroyed more than a few innocent lives of citizens who dared to be free and not conform.
Second, unfortunately, Graydon Comstock was guilty of the crime, but the real question, was whether his “crime” was really a crime, or just an offense upon another group’s sensibilities? Who was injured? How was the public good damaged? The salient questions were not before the Supremes and were thus out of bounds.
Third, ultimately, you are spot on. Comstock’s admission of guilt, his “crime” or the Court’s ruling protects none of us. As you suggest, the reality is quite the opposite. The ruling demonstrates how fragile and susceptible “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” are . . . at the hands of a willful and powerful segment of this Grand Republic. The Roberts Court has most commonly sided with the government over the citizen, and more specifically with Federalism over all else . . . not a comforting observation.

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