Update no.446

Update from the Heartland

No.446

28.6.10 – 4.7.10

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

To all,

For all the former colonists, I hope y’all had a safe and enjoyable Independence Day holiday. We had a smaller gathering than usual this year; Sherri, Taylor & Jack joined us. Jack, 10, did the honors and read the Declaration of Independence from “When in the Course of human Events . . .” to “. . . mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.” Well done, Jack! The remnants of Hurricane Alex made its way across the Great Plains. After two days of rain, we weren’t sure we would have any outdoor events, but the precipitation broke for a few hours just around dusk. This was our first July 4th at the lake, so we were quite modest in our pyrotechnic celebration. Taylor and Jack did the honors for us. The surprise for us was the extent of fireworks demonstrations all around the lake – very impressive. We had a glorious day.

The follow-up news items:
-- The U.S. Senate confirmed the President’s nomination of General David Petraeus [270 & sub] to replace dismissed General Stanley McChrystal [387 & sub], as the new commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan. In a subdued ceremony on Sunday, General Petraeus assumed command in Kabul. Good luck and good hunting, Dave.
-- Congress added U.S. law to UN Security Council Resolution 1929 when the President signed into law the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2009 [PL 111-195; H.R.2194; House: 408-8-1-16(2); Senate: 99-0-0-1(0)], enhancing sanctions against the Islamic Republic of Iran [419/20, 443]. I want these sanctions to work. I want the IRI to abandon its nuclear weapons development program. I also want the IRI to stop their sponsorship of terrorist organizations and objectives. I am still waiting for results.

In 1995, as an assistant professor of law at the University of Chicago, Elena Kagan reviewed a book titled: “The Confirmation Mess,” by Stephen Carter; the review was published in The University of Chicago Law Review [Vol. 62, No. 2 (Spring, 1995), pp. 919-942]. In that review, she referred to her service as Special Counsel to the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary in connection with the confirmation of Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg to the Supreme Court (1993). Kagan took exception to Carter’s assessment and rendition of the judicial nomination confirmation process and coined the now famous phrase “a vapid and hollow charade” in describing the process. In her own charade, she comported herself admirably, with rare humor and strength. We will not likely know her opinion of the process until she is confirmed (which she appears destined to achieve), and even then, we may have to wait a few years before we learn if she retained that opinion when she was the focus of Senate scrutiny and that “charade.”

Ten, perhaps 11, individuals were arrested and accused of being agents for a foreign power, in violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA) [PL 95-511] as amended by the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 [PL 106-120] and the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 [PL 107-056]. All 11 were reportedly working for the Sluzhba Vneshney Razvedki (SVR) – the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service (separate from the FSB, and both descendents from the former KGB). This particular law is one of those catch-all’s that the government uses from time to time when it suits other purposes. No one has presented evidence of actual espionage activities, although numerous talking heads have hinted at such conduct. I suspect there is much more to this story than the prima facie charges so far. The near silence of the Russian government suggests something quite a bit larger. Hopefully, we will eventually learn the whole story.

This editorial is not a pleasant topic and I am certain the issue is a subject most decent, civilized, human beings would prefer not to even consider, let alone discuss or debate.
“Not Anyone’s Daughter”
Editorial
New York Times
Published: June 30, 2010
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/01/opinion/01thu4.html?_r=1&th&emc=th
The proposed law on focus here was introduced last month in the House of Representatives – the Girls Protection Act of 2010 [H.R. 5137] – which intends to make taking a girl out of the United States for the purpose of ritual genital mutilation a Federal crime. First, I stand in public condemnation of such conduct no matter the reason, rational or justification – such practice is barbaric in the extreme and on many levels. Further, I condemn any religion, tribal ritual, or obscene mythology that advocates for the procedure. Yet, it is well-intentioned laws such as this one that are so easily abused by some eager prosecutors. The method of enforcement of such law is not clear, since we are talking about intentions that may not be written or even spoken. We are also injecting the government into the private affairs of families. The proposed law has been referred to the House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security; we need to see more definition before rendering an opinion.

Here is another article most folks would prefer not to read about or discuss. I leave such decision to your judgment, interest, time and willingness to learn.
“The last person out of the closet? The bisexual male”
by Stephanie Chen
CNN
Published: June 28, 2010 9:04 a.m. EDT
http://www.cnn.com/2010/LIVING/06/28/bisexual.male.last.closet/

Another perspective and opinion regarding the McChrystal dismissal:
“The General and the Community Organizer”
by Paul Hollrah
Family Security Matters
June 28, 2010
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.6581/pub_detail.asp
While Hollrah has some valid observations, ultimately, Stan left the President no choice. McChrystal sought confrontation; he got it. I continue to believe he allowed his staff and himself to be exposed to the public domain intentionally, not out of some ignorance, or betrayal, or naïveté.

This article is not for the faint of heart . . .
“The Sexual Revolution and Children – How the Left Took Things Too Far”
by Jan Fleischhauer and Wiebke Hollersen
Der Spiegel
Published: 2.July.2010
http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/0,1518,702679,00.html#ref=nlint
. . . however, it is history.

Several years ago, Jeanne got me hooked on The View – the ABC talk show with the ladies bantering about Hot Topics – contemporary issues of the moment, my kinda thing. As a side note, my only frustration with the show springs from the fact that they do not listen to my arguments. Anyway, back to my thought, on the 29.June episode, the ladies of The View interviewed a former Chickamauga Elementary School kindergarten teacher from Ringgold, Georgia – 37-year-old Tonya Craft. A jury of her peers in Catoosa County [Georgia] Superior Court acquitted her on 22 charges of child molestation, aggravated sexual battery and aggravated child molestation, after nearly two days of deliberation. By an obscene combination of false accusations and over-zealous prosecution, Tonya faced the most forbidding and damning charges in our society; and despite her acquittal on all charges, she will undoubtedly face ostracism and condemnation by a society that does not take kindly to the abuse of children. Yet, Tonya’s plight raises once again the question of rehabilitation of the innocent and the guilty who pay their debt to the society they offended. Tonya has lost her job, her livelihood, and probably will be prevented from ever teaching children again . . . simply because a vindictive adult and a gullible prosecutor wanted to believe she was a child molester. Many citizens, including me, have proclaimed sexual conduct is a private matter and not acceptable for the public domain. Unfortunately, for Tonya Craft, that very same sense of propriety subjected her to horrific public disdain and ridicule. Once again I say, perhaps one day we will mature as a society and culture to talk about sex and sexuality in a proper, open, public debate, so that we can progress individually and as a community.

Congress passed the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) [PL 104-132] [394], which was signed into law by President Clinton in April 1996. Within months and pursuant to the new law, the Secretary of State designated 30 groups as foreign terrorist organizations. Shortly thereafter, an American organization known as the Humanitarian Law Project (HLP) filed a civil suit challenging the constitutionality of the law under the 1st and 5th Amendments. HLP wanted to provide various legal, educational and other advice to the Partiya Karkeran Kurdistan (PKK) [AKA Kurdistan Workers’ Party] and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) – two of the entities declared terrorist groups under AEDPA. The HLP’s case focused on the definition of “material support.” They sought to provide “training for PKK members to use international law to resolve disputes peacefully; teaching PKK members to petition the United Nations and other representative bodies for relief; and engaging in political advocacy on behalf of Kurds living in Turkey and Tamils living in Sri Lanka.” Sounds reasonable, doesn’t it? Peaceful purpose . . . no weapons, no violence, no money, just legal advice and counsel. The case made it to the Supremes and was decided last week – Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project [560 U.S. ___ (2010); no. 08-1498]. As a background note and point of history, on 31.January.1996, the LTTE exploded a truck bomb filled with an estimated 1,000 pounds of explosives at the Central Bank in Colombo, Sri Lanka, killing 100 people and injuring more than 1,400 – the attack was the deadliest terrorist incident in the world in 1996 [if we exclude the TWA 800 incident]. The PKK and LTTE are not humanitarian groups; they kill people to further their political objectives. Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the Court, stated, “The First Amendment issue before us is more refined than either plaintiffs or the Government would have it. It is not whether the Government may prohibit pure political speech, or may prohibit material support in the form of conduct. It is instead whether the Government may prohibit what plaintiffs want to do--provide material support to the PKK and LTTE in the form of speech.” John went on to observe, “Whether foreign terrorist organizations meaningfully segregate support of their legitimate activities from support of terrorism is an empirical question,” . . . and not appreciably different from the arguments regarding organized crime, e.g., il Mafioso. When it enacted AEDPA in 1996, Congress made specific findings regarding the serious threat posed by international terrorism; “[F]oreign organizations that engage in terrorist activity are so tainted by their criminal conduct that any contribution to such an organization facilitates that conduct.” Cases like this one reminds us there are limits to all our freedoms, including speech and assembly. Congress attempted to define one of those limits. When are words actually “material support” to an enemy? The Supremes told the HLP (and other organizations) legal advise no matter how peacefully intended is “material support,” and although we are not at war with the PKK or LTTE, terrorism is like any other adversary. The Logan Act of 1799 [280] prohibits citizens from negotiating with foreign powers, and in combination with the AEDPA, prohibits aiding and abetting enemies of We, the People, including those extra-territorial organizations like al-Qaeda, the PKK and the LTTE. The potential for abuse by some zealous prosecutor remains real and even more possible with laws like the AEDPA. Regardless, the Supremes did what had to be done.

The Supreme Court’s recent Second Amendment case – McDonald v. Chicago [560 U.S. ___ (2010); no. 08-1521] – is next on my judicial reading list.

News from the economic front:
-- The Commerce Department reported consumer spending rose a modest 0.2% in May after being flat the prior month. Incomes rose 0.4% in May, helped by slow improvements in the jobs market.
-- The Wall Street Journal reported, “U.S. consumer confidence dropped sharply in June to 52.9, amid concerns over the sustainability of recovery.”
-- The Labor Department reported non-farm payrolls fell by 125,000 in June, as 225,000 temporary government census jobs ended. Only 83,000 private-sector jobs were added last month. Employment declined for the first time this year, adding to concerns that the pace of the recovery may slow in the second half.
-- A separate survey showed the unemployment rate dropped to 9.5% as many people dropped out of the labor force.

Comments and contributions from Update no.445:
Comment to the Blog:
“I apologize for the lengthy pointless discussion last week. Perhaps we can discuss that another time in a different setting.
“You neglected to mention that Judge Feldman, who ruled against the Federal government and in favor of the oil companies, has a public record of owning oil company stock as recently as 2008. Somehow you seem to think that legal processes are carried out objectively by people whose central interest is ‘the truth.’ Such beliefs fly in the face of evidence.”
My reply to the Blog:
I am truly sorry you felt last week’s discussion was pointless. I suspect the pointless-osity stems from my inability to comprehend. I encourage you to pick up the lance whenever the urge strikes you.
Re: “You neglected to mention . . .” Oh my, that was rather harsh . . . and probably deservedly so. I based my opinion on the judge’s words, not his investments. It was certainly not the most scholarly judicial pronouncement I have read, but it was sufficient to convince me of its worthiness. The Executive does not have unilateral authority in such cases. We are debating a very serious, economically profound, public action based on one dramatic accident; in essence, the Executive has condemned an entire process by one event. His comparison to aircraft, or rail, or mining accidents was apropos. Whether the judge was plagued by conflict of interest, the outcome seems appropriate. The USG’s process is called Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM); it works; we should use the process.
. . . a follow-up comment:
“My opinions of people's actions, including judges' actions, is shaped by their interests as well as their words. I find it reasonable to expect judges to attempt objectivity, but not when that objectivity is opposed to their financial interests or to strongly held values. That particular judge's only appropriate course of action would have been to remove himself from that case due to his conflict of interest.”
. . . my follow-up reply:
I certainly cannot disagree with your method of judging folks. Conflict of interest is often very black or white, but sometimes it is various shades of grey. The judge’s logic and reasoning are correct, and he will not be the final decider.
In this case, we could examine the inverse of this issue. Why isn’t anyone questioning the President and his administration of conflict of interest, of arbitrariness, of acting capriciously and threatening an entire industry? As Judge Feldman noted, this was one accident . . . hardly justification for condemning an industry.
I’m just sayin’.

Another contribution:
“Glad your latest grandchild is doing well.
“Good blog! Much in there to think about.
“McChrystal had to go, that is clear to me and I've no problem with it. Just as MacArthur had to go. Let’s hope Petreaus is as good as folks say he is about politics, and warfighting. He will need both talents.
“Amos our new CMC? I think he is certainly capable as many other aviators would have been in the past. My question is why him? Mattis is likely a better warfighter, but from a political standpoint also likely harder to control. So the question becomes what do you want in your top military leaders?
“Do you want Yes men like I think Westmorland was during Vietnam,? I think not. I believe you want----and need----warfighters, tested in battle tactics, adept at strategic planning for both the fight itself and what to do afterwards, steeped in a superb knowledge of history and how it is in so Many ways always still relevant in today's world or any world in the future, an understanding that in our country the military is an arm of the People, subordinate to the people, and the people are led by their elected President. In today's world our top military must have political accumen also----an unfortunately necessary attribute in our world today.
“Not many can live up to all of that. When we find one who can we should keep him if we can. I think that it takes an extraordinary person to say in the face of all he knows a simple ‘Yessir, I'll go.’”
My response:
Thank you. Avalon Mar is thriving . . . a testament to Mom’s extra care in utero.
Stan either overestimated his importance or underestimated the significance of his words. Yes, Stan had to go; he left POTUS no choice. I illuminate an article in this week’s Update by a right-wing blogger who has a relevant perspective. For any flag officer to think his job is not political would be naïve in the extreme. Dave has proven his political skills. I hope and believe he is up to the task at hand.
I do not know Jim Amos. I hope he is up to the task; I’m sure he is. It’s about time we had an aviator as the HMFIC. I suspect, as with many selections of this sort, familiarity and acceptance by SecDef, the Chairman, key senators, and such was crucial. I thought Mattis replacing McChrystal would have been a good choice. Oh well. Nonetheless, the higher the rank, the more political the job. We need an effective general, not just an efficient killer.
Your observation is spot on, and I think Stan forgot the acumen of which you spoke.
I have very specific opinions regarding responsible conduct: either you do your best to accomplish the mission within the constraints given, or resign. Doing what Stan did is not one of the options.

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