Update no.456

Update from the Heartland

No.456

6.9.10 – 12.9.10

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

To all,
The follow-up news items:
-- The legal wrangling regarding Federal funding of embryonic stem cell research took another positive step forward this week when the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia circuit issued a short, direct, immediate administrative stay of Judge Lambeth’s injunction [454]. Sherley v. Sebelius [DC CCA no. 10-5287 (2010)] While the ruling is positive, the continuing uncertainty cannot be helpful. I look forward to reading the appeals court’s assessment of Shirley v. Sebelius [USDC DC civ. no. 1:09-cv-1575 (RCL) (2010)] [454].
-- United States District Court Judge Virginia A. Phillips of the California Central District declared the military’s “Don't Ask, Don't Tell” policy [PL 103-160] [312, 408] unconstitutional. I did not have the capacity to read the judge’s ruling this week; hopefully, I’ll get ‘er done next week. I am eager to see how this judge sees this controversial issue.

I understand and can also appreciate folks being disgusted by the adult section of the Craigslist website. However, the public embarrassment approach to censorship and oppression should anger us all. What happened to Craigslist is NOT the way censorship should be carried out in a free society? When are we going to grow up?

Border protection is not and cannot be successful as a wall, sensor arrays, and masses of enforcement personnel. The Maginot Line comes to mind. We must have defense in depth, which means we must overcome corporations seeking sources of low-cost labor by enacting a comprehensive, legal, transient or guest workers visa program.
Would our opinion of the illegal immigration issue be different if instead of workers, the Mexican Army crossed the border, reclaimed New Mexico, established its law and authority over the inhabitants of the region? Would the Federal government feel any greater responsibility to defend New Mexico? What is the difference between an invasion of soldiers and an invasion of workers? The outcome is the same, is it not?
I can argue that powerful corporations have sought and achieved paralysis and inaction of the Federal government, so that they could enhance their profits on the back of cheap labor that has no course of appeal (i.e., illegal). I could also argue that political forces seek inaction to expand the roles of voters (also illegal) inclined to support their party. Such arguments are simplistic and demeaning to the complexity of the out-of-control illegal immigration issue; however, they do serve to illuminate a course of action to overcome the paralysis in Washington, DC.

Since I seem to be on a roll in this edition, I am getting a bit irritated that so many intelligent, perceptive people say things like, “It has now been nine years since al-Qaeda attacked the United States” – in these days prior to our annual remembrance. Irritated, why, you may ask? If any of us were U.S. Marines in a hotel in Aden, Yemen, on 29.December.1992, we might not feel the same. I make no claim to being an expert on the genesis and evolution of al-Qaeda or the employment of terror tactics by Islamic fundamentalists or radicals; however, I can reach back at least to that date in 1992 when al-Qaeda claimed responsibility for targeting citizens of the United States of America. Further, we have documented a near constant stream of attacks on U.S. interests by al-Qaeda and/or its affiliates virtually every year from 1992 to 2001 (including attacks on the Homeland; I can list them, if anyone is interested). So, why is it we continue to pretend that al-Qaeda mysteriously appeared and attacked our homeland in 2001? How much warning did we need? As an entity, al-Qaeda formed circa 1988, and there were alarm bells ringing before then. Let us not pretend the War on Islamic Fascism began in 2001; such nonsense is quite akin to thinking World War II started in December 1941 – pretty myopic, if you ask me.

On Wednesday, 8.September.2010, BP issued its report on the internal investigation of the Deepwater Horizon (DH) accident [20.4.2010; 442]. My natural (some might say unnatural) curiosity compelled me to read all of the 193-page report plus 27 appendices of supporting data. As an engineer, I was fascinated to look inside the drilling technology of deepwater oil exploration. I learned that the proper title was the Macondo Well; Deepwater Horizon was the free-floating, drilling rig built, owned and operated by Transocean – a Swiss world-wide oil exploration company – that BP leased to work the Macondo Well. I also learned about a lot of elements involved in deep sea drilling like Blow Out Preventer (BOP), Variable Bore Ram [VBR], Blind Shear Ram (BSR), nitrified foam cement slurry, Subsea Electronic Module (SEM), and the Emergency Disconnect Sequence (EDS). The BP investigation team identified eight (8) key factors leading to the outcome:
“1. The annulus cement barrier did not isolate the hydrocarbons.
“2. The shoe track barriers did not isolate the hydrocarbons.
“3. The negative-pressure test was accepted although well integrity had not been established.
“4. Influx was not recognized until hydrocarbons were in the riser.
“5. Well control response actions failed to regain control of the well.
“6. Diversion to the mud gas separator resulted in gas venting onto the rig.
“7. The fire and gas system did not prevent hydrocarbon ignition.
“8. The BOP emergency mode did not seal the well.”
The analysis is extensive, and the conclusions substantiated; however, while the BP report offers us considerably more insight into the technical causes of the accident, it is at best a preliminary assessment. The 50-foot-tall, 300-ton BOP was raised to the surface on 4.September.2010, and was impounded immediately by the FBI. The physical examination of the BOP was not part of the BP investigation. While the subject report explains many things about the well equipment, the drilling process and the technical causal factors, it does not provide us the whole picture. I think it important to note that the BP investigation was hobbled by the Justice Department’s criminal investigation process (although the company made no mention of the other investigations), which for engineering events like the Deepwater Horizon explosion and fire becomes a tacit assumption of violations of law. Certainly, the loss of 11 citizens and 17 others injured warrants an extraordinary investigation; however, jumping to the criminal level without evidence seriously alters the equation. I can understand the urge to worst case such investigations by assuming malfeasance or felonious action, thus criminal prosecution procedures dominating. However, experience with aviation events suggests such approaches do NOT advance engineering and operational safety. In that sense, this event is no different from an airliner crash or any other systemic accident. For those of us who have been reading or creating aviation accident reports, the BP Macondo Well report shares many general similarities and one central fundamental commonality – there was no single root cause, but rather a sequence of events that caused the accident – a chain of events – changing any one link of which might have altered the outcome. Design deficiencies, operator error apparently due to poor or inadequate information, inadequate for complex procedures, and poor continuous training all contributed to this accident. Yet, the one impression I am left with remains the crew failed to perform time-critical functions as the well went unstable. In the small-unit reconnaissance business, we called them immediate action drills; rigorous, recurrent training to ensure each man reacts precisely to threats. For pilots, we called them emergency procedures; airline pilots practice and their performance is evaluated every six months on time-critical emergency procedures. All that said, I suspect there will be prosecutions, mainly for failure to properly maintain critical safety systems.

I note the ruling this week of the United States Court of Appeals dismissing the CIA rendition and torture case – Mohamed v. Jeppesen Dataplan, Inc. [9CCA 08-15693 (2010)] [289, 307]. I will review the ruling in the next week or two.

As if taken from a playbook from yesteryear, U.S. Marines early Thursday boarded and seized control of the MV Magellan Star – a German-owned, commercial vessel – that had been commandeered by pirates in the Gulf of Aden, 85 miles southeast of Mukallah, Yemen. Nine bad guys were captured without firing a shot. Marines from the 2nd Platoon, Force Reconnaissance Company, attached to the 15th Marine Expeditionary Unit led the boarding party. Great job lads! Now the lawyers get to play their games.

Here is another Supreme Court decision I read out of odd curiosity, since I did not see in the summaries that it applied outside the State of Florida – a property rights case. Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc. v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection [560 U.S. ____ (2010); no. 08-1151]. The constitutional issue at hand is the Takings Clause of the 5th Amendment, as applied to the states through the 14th Amendment, which states, “. . . nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” Here we have a classic example of the requirement for balance in a free society. Let us assume we are property owners on a grassy bluff at the beach. The law says I own the land down to the rolling 19-year mean high-water line. The law also says the State owns the transient littoral land from my property line (the mean high-water line) to the low-tide line as well as the submerged land beyond the low-tide line. So, according to the law, the State could dredge sand from seaward and build a large berm beyond the low-tide line. Undoubtedly, such action would fundamentally alter the natural view of that section of beach and the value of my property; however, since the action did not directly affect my property, the State is not obligated to compensate my loss of value. After all, literally, the State is not “taking” my property, although by their action, they are altering my property benefit and value. While I think the Court made the correct judgment, this is one of those decisions that is precariously near the line of instability. The government should tread lightly.

News from the economic front:
-- The U.S. deficit in international trade of goods and services decreased in July by 14% to US$42.78B from the revised US$49.76B the previous month – the biggest drop in 17 months. Exports expanded 1.8%, the highest level since August 2008; while imports fell 2.1%.
-- First-time unemployment claims decreased by 27,000 to 451,000 in the week ending 4.September. Continuing claims decreased in the week ending 28.August by 2,000 to 4,478,000.
-- The Wall Street Journal reported that international bank regulators reached an agreement Sunday on new rules for the world's largest banks in an effort to create a more stable financial system. The deal would create new capital standards for banks and require banks to hold more capital against a wider range of their loans and investments.

Comments and contributions from Update no.455:
“SB 1070 would not be necessary if the Federal Government would have done its (expletive) job in the first place. Instead, they just step up their hostile actions against my state. So Maricopa Community College discriminated against 250 people by asking them their immigration status? Excuse me, but last time I filled out a job application, I had to provide all kinds of proof and information to show my employer I was who I said I was. And if that wasn't enough, now they go after Sheriff Joe Arpaio. I'm glad he's not cooperating with the federal government. Until they decide to take this issue seriously, we here in Arizona should cooperate with the Feds as little as possible. If they wish to treat us like an enemy nation, why should we be nice to them? Besides, they have proven that they care more about lawbreakers than they do the citizens they are constitutionally obligated to protect.”
My comment:
Your observations are quite understandable.

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