Update no.447

Update from the Heartland

No.447

5.7.10 – 11.7.10

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

To all,
The follow-up news items:
-- The Justice Department filed suit against the State of Arizona challenging the state’s SB1070 immigration enforcement law [436]. I have not read the Government’s complaint, as yet; however presumably, the Federal case rests on the Supremacy Clause. I suppose the Federales had to exert themselves, however the case has to be weak based on the gross ineffectiveness of the Federal (un)enforcement of immigration law. Regardless, this is a really foolish move. The Federal government has in essence told the border-states to shut up, sit on your hands, and let the Federal government do nothing. Oh yeah, and, the states will pay all the extra expenses of Federal inaction, incompetence, complacency, and neglect. Yes, this was a really bad move that will haunt this administration.
-- The Deepwater Horizon well blow-out [442] continues to dominate the news. The long-anticipated “bottom kill” of the well -- a massive dose of mud and cement shot through a relief well now reportedly within feet of the target. They also removed the mostly-working-cap to install a new tighter fitting cap. The struggle to contain the discharged oil continues.
-- The 10 accused Russian agents [446] pleaded guilty to being unregistered foreign agents and were promptly whisked off by charter jet to Vienna, Austria, where they were exchanged for four Russians imprisoned for being American spies. Presumably, they will live happily ever-after.
-- President Obama nominated General James N. Mattis, USMC, [129, 165, 166-7, 341] to replace General Petraeus, USA, as Commander-in-Chief, Central Command (CinC CentCom) – a brilliant choice I must add . . . even though I am irretrievably biased.
-- In the Gulf oil drama, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in New Orleans, rejected the Federal government’s appeal of the district court’s injunction – Hornbeck Offshore Services v. Salazar [USDC LAED civil action no. 10-1663 (2010)] [445]. The USG is sure to appeal to the Supremes on principle, if not substance. Sadly, the damage has been done multi-fold – the leak continues (see above), and oil exploration companies are abandoning drilling plans. The threat of the moratorium and the legal uncertainty are accomplishing everything the moratorium intended. The impact on the Gulf Coast economy will be dramatic.

For those readers who may have been anticipating my assessment of the Supreme Court’s latest Second Amendment case – McDonald v. Chicago [560 U.S. ___ (2010); no. 08-1521] – I regret to confess the ruling was too long, involving too much history and legal linkage for my humble capacity this week. I should be able to complete my reading and offer my opinion for next week’s Update.

Congratulations to Spain for their World Cup championship. It was not a particularly pretty match; yet, they outplayed the Dutch and they deserved the victory. Well done!

U.S. government scientists claimed discovery of three powerful antibodies – the strongest of which neutralizes 91% of HIV strains, more than any AIDS antibody yet discovered. The discovery, if validated and replicated, brings us closer to an HIV vaccine – an objective comparable to the vaccines for smallpox, polio, and so many other fatal diseases.

On Wednesday, the Deputy President of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, Lord Justice Baron [James Arthur David] Hope of Craighead, KT, PC, QC, FRSE, announced the Court’s ruling in a unique asylum case – HJ (Iran) and HT (Cameroon) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [UKSC 2009/0054 (2010) UKSC 31]. HJ and HT are both homosexuals who claim they will be killed or seriously injured if they are forced to return to their homelands. The Court of Appeal had rejected the appeals of both men, based on their assessment that, if returned to their respective home countries, HJ and HT could conceal their sexual orientation in order to avoid the risk of being persecuted. What an enlightened opinion! Lord Hope noted, “To compel a homosexual person to pretend that their sexuality does not exist, or that the behaviour by which it manifests itself can be suppressed, is to deny him his fundamental right to be who he is. Homosexuals are as much entitled to freedom of association with others of the same sexual orientation, and to freedom of self-expression in matters that affect their sexuality, as people who are straight.” Fortunately, there are a few who can help humanity take another step farther down the road of progress.

On Thursday, United States District Court Judge Joseph L. Tauro in Boston declared the Federal Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 [PL 104-199] was unconstitutional in two separate but similar cases – Massachusetts v. United States [USDC MA civil action no. 1:09-11156-JLT (2010)] and Gill v. OPM [USDC MA civil action no. 09-10309-JLT (2010)]. Both cases are on my reading list to review.

Comments and contributions from Update no.446:
Comment to the Blog:
“I still recommend reading the history of military conquest in Afghanistan prior to any optimism.
“The fact that Elena Kagan sees the confirmation process as a charade (logically enough) surely does not prevent her from wanting to join the highest rank of her field. I think that I would do that were I in her position.
“The article on bisexual men is interesting, particularly where it notes that bisexuals need not give up heterosexual privilege except by choice. My feeling is that bisexuals, particularly men, are at roughly the point in their progress that gay men were about the time of the Stonewall riot.
“The article on the Sexual Revolution and children is longer and at a more difficult reading level than the one on bisexuals, and it deals with events in Germany about 40 years ago. For the life of me, I could not find any information beyond the anecdotal or any conclusion except for the childish ‘you do wrong things too’ attitude. All in all, this one is not valuable as evidence of anything.”
My reply to the Blog:
I am fairly familiar with the history of Afghanistan. The salient word in your sentence is “conquest.” The contemporary Battle for Afghanistan is not about “conquest,” but rather the hearts & minds of the Afghan people. There is certainly no guarantee of success, and I strongly doubt we shall know victory by September 2011.
You are, of course, precisely correct. The last Supreme Court nominee who attempted to answer with candor and direct frankness was Robert Bork (1987), and we know how that turned out. I do not fault Elena Kagan for her desire to pass the gauntlet. I think she accurately described the consequences of the intransigently polar and parochial, political environment we have had to endure for decades. Like you, I would have done precisely the same thing in her position.
You may well be correct . . . Stonewall was a long time ago (1969) . . . and we have a very long way to go before every citizen enjoys the freedom envisioned by the Founders of this Grand Republic.
The Der Spiegel article was history . . . from 40 years ago. The sad aspect beyond the compromised youth of those children was such events / episodes most often cause regression rather than progression. I asked one question after reading the article: what can we learn and turn into a positive from such experience(s)?
. . . round two:
“No military action wins the hearts and minds of a defeated nation. It's not in the nature of the situation. That was the point of last week's discussion. In any case, how one can see that prolonged attempt at ‘victory’ as something other than conquest eludes me. I looked up the Wikipedia article on Afghanistan today; it lists petroleum and extensive mineral resources found in Afghanistan. My guess is that those are the underlying motivation for both the Russians' disastrous 1979-1989 campaign there and for the current US effort.
“I certainly agree that we have far to go before the Founding Fathers' vision is fulfilled. I see bisexuals, particularly men, as having reached a position on their path to full participation in society approximating that of gay men at the time of the Stonewall Riots in 1969; that is, awareness of their existence is growing but many opponents, myths and misunderstandings remain.
“The Der Spiegel article struck me as odd in its viewpoint. It seemed to me that the authors were digging up political ammunition against long-gone opponents. I noted that one of their sources had attended the type of preschool in question but used others' stories to write her book. No coherent evidence, or even statements, discussed the lives or well-being of the children since the preschools when this happened. Were they grievously injured? Did they require therapy more than others? What do they themselves recall? I would like to see more quantified, cause-and-effect research in this area, or at least reasonably strong correlations. Bear in mind that I am a college student today, so quality of information is very relevant to my daily life.”
. . . my reply to round two:
In the context of people living peacefully, yes, I would agree; violence is never the answer. I do not see how anyone can see the Battles for Iraq or Afghanistan as conquest of sovereign nations to exploit their resources. If we took down Saddam Hussein for Iraqi oil, why aren’t we consuming all their oil? The Afghan natural resources news was intended to spark investment and Afghan self-sufficiency; the Allies are hardly exploiting those resources. The necessity of violence in Afghanistan is to provide security for the people until the Afghan government can mature to provide that security. We are there because the Taliban used violence to impose its will upon the Afghan people and to offer safe haven for al-Qaeda to train and operate, which in turned threatened us and our allies. Once the Afghan government is operating properly or al-Qaeda & its offspring ease to exist or offer threat, then we will be gone (and perhaps even before that given the political winds).
Very well said re: bisexuals. Actually, I think we could expand the awareness to the broad spectrum of human sexuality from heterosexuality to homosexuality and beyond. I think the point of the article was to begin to crack the ice and open public awareness. We need to discuss & debate these things until we can recognize the rights of all citizens and allow each citizen the freedom of choice to define his unique “Life, Liberty, and pursuit of Happiness.”
The tone and perspective of the Der Spiegel article struck me in a similar manner. It was not meant to inform or frame any public debate, but rather to shock in a negative way . . . as you suggest, probably for political purposes. It happened. It would have been far more journalistic to suggest a need to study those children. Europe tends to be more liberal than the United States, but clearly those schools stretched the limits of their liberalism. I would like to know the answers to your questions as well . . . to understand the consequences of such social action. Nonetheless, as you note, information accuracy and breadth are crucial in your current endeavor, as well as for all of us . . . to conduct a proper public debate. The article made an attempt but missed the mark miserably.
. . . round three:
“I enjoy these discussions but we generally disagree on military issues. Your reply is founded upon the idea that we have spent massive resources for nine years in the attempt to track down what was originally a few hundred ill-equipped radicals. The original quarry, as I remember from TV news, was Osama bin-Laden, who according to the story line I hear has eluded all civil and military authorities of the US and its remaining allies for this whole time. I just don't find that credible. Either we have the finest (and certainly most expensive) military in the world or not. Nine years? Then you repeat what I kept hearing in my political youth about Vietnam: the idea that we can create a stable and functional government in and for a country where we are seen as a conquering army. It didn't work then and shows no sign of working now.
“We find ourselves in complete agreement regarding bisexuals. If the bisexuals follow the examples of gay men and lesbians, progress will likely follow.”
. . . my reply to round three:
We may disagree on the use of military force, but that is all the more reason we need to discuss and debate these issues.
I would disagree with your “founding” statement. Trying to track-down the leadership of al-Qaeda is only a small part of the War on Islamic Fascism, just as trying to eliminate Nazi leaders was only a small part of the war against Germany. A further dimension and complication in hunting down Usama bin Ladin is Pakistan and its nearly autonomous (read lawless) tribal region. We failed to capture/kill bin Ladin when he was in Afghanistan. If this was just about the U.S. military going into Pakistan to find him, we would have done that long ago; but, it is not. We are pressing the limits of Pakistani tolerance using drone-killers in their airspace; and, they have been reticent to press their anti-al-Qaeda efforts. Further, I am fairly certain the Spec Ops lads are working the region the best they can given the constraints. We’ll find him eventually, just as we found Saddam . . . hiding in a hole.
I am not disputing your precept . . . if we are perceived as a “conquering army,” then our approach is destined to failure. If, however, as I believe it is or should be the case, we are seen as a security force, trying to make them safe from violent dominance by the Taliban, then we will succeed.
We can only hope all individuals realize the full benefit and privilege of citizenship, regardless of their sexual orientation, race, color, religion, age, gender, political affiliation or other of the social factors. We must all work for that day.
. . . round four:
“We have discussed much of this before. For the rest of the Internet, I'll repeat my assertions that (a) fighting a concrete entity (Japan, Britain, Kenya) is a war; fighting an idea (drugs, poverty, terrorism) is futile. And (b) our discussion last week was about how people--any people--see foreign armies in control of their country. Those armies are just never welcome for any length of time.”
. . . my reply to round four:
In this context, I think we agree. Since the surge in Iraq (2006), we have not been fighting a classic blue-on-red force engagement. We have been fighting (or attempting to do so) a COunterINsurgency (COIN) operation, which is typically part force, part political. I would agree that an occupying army is often not looked kindly upon by indigenous people. We continue to have substantial military forces stationed in Germany, Italy and Japan, but we are not seen as an occupying army. The same can be achieved in Afghanistan and Iraq, although we have a long way to achieve stability; we are closer in Iraq than Afghanistan. Anyway, as I said, I think we agree on the principle, perhaps not on the degree or prognosis.

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