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 :-)