Update from the Heartland
No.467
22.11.10 – 28.11.10
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,I trust the Americans enjoyed a Happy Thanksgiving with family and friends. We managed to fit everyone at the big table, this year. We missed half our kids and grandchildren as well as our usual friends. We were grateful for the bounty and love. The big news from this year’s celebration . . . our youngest son Taylor and his long-term girlfriend Sherri Suzanne Stuke announced their engagement after our family dinner. Congratulations to Sherri and Taylor. We are very proud of both of them.
The follow-up news items:
-- On Wednesday, a Texas state, criminal court jury found the former House majority leader and Texas political powerhouse, Thomas Dale “Tom” DeLay AKA The Hammer [175, et al] guilty of money-laundering. The trial gave us a glimpse into the world of campaign financing in Washington, with large contributions from corporations seeking to influence DeLay & his cronies, and junkets to posh resorts where the congressman would rub shoulders with lobbyists in return for donations. While DeLay’s conviction is gratifying in a small way, his trial leaves a deeply nauseating sensation in my gut in the shadow of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United [424] ruling.
-- Another opinion in the on-going enhanced screening procedures debate [466]:
“Don't touch my junk? Grow up, America.”
by Ruth Marcus
Washington Post
Published: Wednesday, November 24, 2010
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/23/AR2010112305163.html?wpisrc=nl_opinions
-- WikiLeaks strikes again! [450, 453, 462] This time the notorious website disclosed an estimated 250,000 classified American diplomatic cables, most of them from the past three years. The New York Times and several other news organizations previewed some of the documents. Of the few documents I have read, the disclosures offer an unprecedented window into what the Times claims to be the “backroom bargaining by embassies around the world, brutally candid views of foreign leaders and frank assessments of nuclear and terrorist threats.”
On Tuesday, circa 14:30 [I], the DPRK began firing artillery across the disputed Northern Limit Line (NLL) at Yeonpyeong Island, Republic of Korea, killing two RoK Marines and two civilians. The South Korean riot police had to subdue outraged citizens, who demanded their government take a more aggressive response to the latest transgression from the North. The attack comes on the heels of public illumination of the DPRK’s brand spanking new centrifuge facility – a clear message of the belligerent nation’s intention to produce nuclear weapons. All the activity this week follows the DPRK’s attack on and sinking of the South Korean, Pohang-class corvette, ROKS Cheonan (PCC-772) at 22:45 [I], on 25.March.2010 [432, 436]. As the impoverished country of Grand Dear Leader Umpa-Lumpa continue their temper tantrums, innocent peaceful people die. Our threshold of tolerance must be out there somewhere. Is it invasion? Is it sterilization of portions of the RoK? Is it detonation of a nuclear device in the RoK? Where is our threshold? The DPRK has enjoyed the role of neighborhood street thug for decades and all we do is wag our accusatory finger at them – naughty, naughty, bad boy!
On Friday, Russia's Federal Assembly (parliament) declared Josef Stalin responsible for ordering [5.March.1940] the Katyn massacre of 22,000 Polish officers in World War II – mass murders the Soviets spent decades blaming on the Nazis.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) arrested Somali-born, naturalized U.S. citizen, Mohamed Osman Mohamud, 19, of Corvallis, Oregon, when he attempted to detonate what he believed to be an explosives-laden van parked near the tree lighting ceremony in Portland's Pioneer Courthouse Square. The event was reminiscent of 24.September.2009, and the FBI’s interdiction of multiple bombing attempts in Texas, Illinois and New York. Congratulations to the FBI and the probable unseen contributors, who may have included the NSA and perhaps the CIA. The struggle continues.
A below the fold, front-page article in our local newspaper instigated me to take pen in hand, again . . . well, actually punch the little keys on the keyboard.
“Earmark ban could kill some Kansas projects”
by David Goldstein
Wichita Eagle
Posted on Saturday, November 27, 2010
http://www.kansas.com/2010/11/27/1606822/earmark-ban-could-kill-some-kansas.html
Letter to the Editor,
Of course there are good earmark projects that benefit Kansas, just like Adolf Hitler and the National Socialist German Workers Party did good things for Germany. Unfortunately, what such articles fail to acknowledge rests with the unbounded, near infinite potential for abuse. Earmarks are the largesse of congressional politicians designed to circumvent the constitutional checks and balances created by the Framers to avoid the temptations of corruption. In short, if a project is important enough for the government to spend funds from the public treasury, then it is worth gaining approval and funding through the normal and intended legislative process. Let us not be fooled – easy is NOT better.
News from the economic front:
-- The FBI was busy this week. In addition to the terrorist arrest noted above, FBI agents executed search warrants at the Connecticut offices of hedge funds Diamondback Capital Management and Level Global Investors, and Boston-based, hedge fund, Loch Capital Management, as part of a far-reaching, Wall Street, insider-trading investigation. Level Global and Diamondback are controlled by hedge fund colossus, SAC Capital Advisors, run by the billionaire Steven A. Cohen.
-- From minutes released Tuesday, of the Federal Reserve’s early November meeting, the Fed has lowered expectations on economic growth through 2011. They expect the economy to grow at a moderate pace next year, with unemployment staying disappointingly high 9+% and inflation uncomfortably low.
-- On Wednesday, Federal agents arrested Ching Trang Chu, 56, of Somerset, New Jersey, who was affiliated with Primary Global Research, LLC, of Mountain View, California – a so-called “expert network” firm. While the firm has not yet been implicated in the sweeping three-year Federal investigation of Wall Street insider trading, Chu is considered pivotal to providing insight into the trading processes of numerous companies and industries. Chu was arrested within days of his scheduled flight to Taiwan, ostensibly for business.
-- According to the Wall Street Journal, the European Commission wants to double the size of Europe’s €440B (US$586B) bailout fund for indebted euro-zone countries, but Germany – the EU’s biggest economy – has begun to push back, as worries mount that further commitments might jeopardize German economic growth. The line in the sand is being drawn.
Comments and contributions from Update no.466:
Comment to the Blog:
“Of Nancy Pelosi, you say, ‘Perhaps she envisions enduring to rise again.’ Exactly. Whether or not one agrees with the Tea Party, ‘too much, too soon’ will surely bring them down.
“I agree with you on the pointless damage of attempting to control psychotropic substances by outlawing them. Besides the social damage you point out, this also is incredibly expensive in various ways. Rather than follow the fruitless and damaging example of Prohibition of alcohol, I would direct attention to the slower but much more successful efforts, mostly led by private nonprofits, to stop tobacco use.
“I am grateful that my life does not require flying. Given today's climate, ‘pleasure’ is not a reason for traveling by air. I'm not sure why you assume TSA inspectors are not ‘perverts’; such people are drawn to work that allows them to indulge their particular forms of excitation, and pat-downs would certainly fit that category.
“You are right that banning earmarks will not reduce debt. They have long been used in one-way or another that you and I might not approve of. The one benefit of many earmarks is that they create jobs. We would be better off lumping every project we can find into a single massive job-creation bill, thus benefiting all the congressional districts and their members.”
My reply to the Blog:
Political parties have come and gone throughout our history. Frankly, I see the rather amorphous, so-called “Tea Party” as an emotional reaction to out-of-control congressional spending over the last . . . oh . . . I could say 10 years, but I think it is more like 30 years. We shall see how the tea-baggers do in the 112th Congress.
I have nauseating memories of my parents’ incessant smoking in the house and car. I think it is a disgusting habit. Yet, I remain a defender of every person’s right to make their choices, including the use of tobacco products as long as they cause no collateral damage or injury by their choices. In hindsight, my parents’ habits crossed the threshold in my opinion. My Mother died as a consequence of lung cancer. I can only hope I never develop the disease in my later years as a result of my childhood exposure. Anti-smoking laws have become quite the fad in Kansas, and I resent the government’s intrusion into the private lives and choices of citizens, even when I strongly dislike their choices.
I offered my opinion. I believe the enhanced screening procedures are necessary, warranted and appropriate. I am not concerned with what is in a person’s mind, and thus what jollies a TSA agent may gain from performing the screening task(s); my only concern is the performance of their screening duties. I do not concur with your opinion re: TSA agents. Let us focus upon the performance and conduct of individuals rather than their thoughts, emotions, opinions and private feelings.
As long as expenditures from the Treasury undergo the scrutiny of the legislative process, I can support a public jobs bill, but I would caution such projects should have broad benefit to the nation, e.g., roads, bridges, fiber-optic cable installations, dredging waterways, restoring beaches and wetlands, et cetera; yet, even infrastructure projects can be abused like the “bridge to nowhere” or the “unwanted off-ramp” (both done by earmarks, I must add). I advocate for expenditures to be in the open rather than the object of back-room graft for political gain. The process of earmarks is wrong. I’m sure there are great earmark expenditures, but the opportunities for abuse are limitless and thus intolerable.
. . . round two:
“I think we have more agreement than usual here. My point with tobacco was not about rightness but about methodology. I smoked for more than twenty years and I have no reason to like the addiction, but I also support people's right to indulge it so long as they're willing to pay all of its costs. My point is that if society decides to attack an addiction (not my choice), the least it can do is use effective methods. Prohibition has failed on all fronts and is insanely expensive both in money and societal damage. The attack on tobacco use has been much more effective. While I certainly agree that the attack on tobacco users has gone too far, at least we are not paying for prisons, the DEA, pricey international treaties, and all the rest of the "war" on drugs in that effort.
“I agree with you that the TSA screeners perform their duties as assigned more often than not. What you seem not to understand is how people would be offended by those duties even though they involve touching people's genitals and breasts or similar invasions of privacy. I prefer not to have my genitals touched by people I do not invite to do that. I stand by my solution: I refuse to fly. If the airlines lose enough money on people like me, perhaps they'll think of some other answer to this puzzle. Certainly the TSA has no apparent interest in other answers.
“I also agree, for the most part, about earmarks. All parties agree that jobs are an urgent need; the discussion is about the best way to create them. Certainly if the money that went to earmarks in past Congresses went directly into job creation in this one, that would be a major improvement.”
. . . my reply to round two:
Yes, we are agreed on all points, which hardly makes for a lively public debate.
With ingestible or inhalable substances like tobacco, alcohol, heroin and such, the government roll should be informing the consuming public of the risks, regulating the quality & dosage, and minimization / elimination of any collateral damage by a citizen’s consumption.
The airlines are not the entities calling for enhanced security screening. The TSA is an agency of the USG and responds to the threat(s) it perceives. How would we react to this kerfuffle today if Richard Reid or Umar Abdulmutallab had been successful? We would be screaming for heads on a pike for the failure of the USG to protect us. We were lucky, and as we pilots say, better lucky than good. There is no such thing as perfect security, and generally the best chance at security is a layered set of obstacles. We can speculate whether the current screening techniques would have stopped Reid & Abdulmutallab at the checkpoint; I believe so, others do not. Oh I do understand the reticence of Americans to allow security screeners to touch their genitals, breasts or buttocks . . . after all, they are not anatomy that all of us possess, but they are sexual organs and we know the significance we place on those parts. Personally, I was amazed that such screening procedures were not in place when the USG re-opened the airspace after 11.9.2001. There are valid 4th Amendment and abuse of power concerns, but we should deal with those. Frankly, I do NOT want our security apparatus driven by the profit motive. Lastly, I have persistently encouraged us to re-evaluate our prudishness and modesty regarding our bodies, but that is a much wider topic of public debate.
Oh, I’m sure some earmarks when to temporary jobs creation. After all, a museum for tiddlywinks took a few people to build it, stock it, advertise for it, and staff it. My question is, what is the benefit to the nation? I happened to fly into John Murtha airport near Johnstown, Pennsylvania; great airport . . . wide, long intersecting runways, nice, well-appointed terminal, and virtually no traffic; was all that money best spent on a fancy airport in a rural part of Northwest Pennsylvania? If a project is important enough for expenditure from the public Treasury, then it is important enough for public debate . . . not left to the backroom dealing, largesse of a powerful congressman.
. . . round three:
“I am well aware that the airlines are not the entities calling for ever-increasing intrusive security. They are, however, the entities with a profit motive for finding better ways to deal with the situation. Your wish that our security apparatus (or any part of government) not be driving by the profit motive is about ten years out of date. If the airlines can find another solution, they will find the regulators who will then impose it. My reluctance to have screeners handle or touch my genitals is not driven by prudishness or sexual repression, and I have a personal history that supports that statement. All the same, anything that I interpret as sexual activity is strictly by invitation only. Most people share that last sentence, repressed or not.
“Creating jobs specifically to that purpose seems obviously better than creating jobs incidental to the earmark projects that you mention. I was merely pointing out that earmarks are not some "total evil" feature of government. And in the unreal world of D.C., earmarks seem to be much easier to pass than directed jobs legislation.”
. . . my reply to round three:
The key in such questions is context. What is the purpose of the enhanced screening procedures . . . to what end? Of course, you have every right to avoid airline travel to protest the enhanced screening process. As with any topic, we can respectfully agree to disagree. I, for one, am thankful the Obama administration finally implemented better screening procedures . . . 9 years late . . . but better late than never. I have not used the airlines in 17 months, but I have not the slightest hesitation or reluctance to using the airlines, and I would advise our children & grandchildren to use the airlines when necessary. We need to teach our children and grandchildren what is proper touching by context and purpose. That’s just me.
You are, of course, quite correct. Not all earmark projects are bad, just like not all touching is bad, or all conflicts of interest are bad. My principle concern rests in the enormous potential for abuse, which is why the Framers created our complex system of checks and balances.
Another contribution:
“I'm all for keeping this country safe, and I understand the threat that exists from Islamic terrorists, but I'm sorry, I do think things have gone too far with the TSA. They are becoming heavy-handed in this. They are treating every single person who boards a plane as a suspect. What happened to the 4th Amendment? If someone looks suspicious, or sets off an alarm, then fine search them. But when these people are searching 80-year-old nuns or patting down crying children, then yelling at the mother to keep her kid calm? What the hell is wrong with these people? How about this? How about profiling? How about mimicking some of the security procedures the Israelis do? But isn't this part and parcel with Obama's regime? The incompetent in the White House will not let interrogators deprive terrorists of sleep or throw a bug in their room, or let us call Islamic terrorists "Islamic terrorists," or let us deter illegal immigrants from entering our country. But it's OK to do a full roto-rooter search on Americans who have shown no suspicious behavior whatsoever are treated like criminals, or here in Arizona, people who just want to enforce the law are labeled as an enemy of the state. I hope the airports do experience a national opt-out day. I hope lots of people opt out for driving to where they want or taking the train. We're treated like criminals, our health care decisions are being taken out of our hands, the government takes more and more or our money with little return. When is enough enough? I feel we have reached the point where we need some civil disobedience and show an utter lack of respect for the people running this government. If they do not respect us, the people they work for, why should we respect them?
My response:
I understand your views of the Obama administration, but the issue is not Barack’s or the present administration’s issue. The present war began a half-dozen presidents ago. This is not Barack’s war; this situation has been passed down from successive presidents. So, let us be fair, here.
Frankly, I am appalled it took nine years and at least two very near miss attempts [22.12.2001 & 25.12.2009] to get better screening procedures in place.
If we exclude nuns, children, pregnant women, elderly, whomever, who do you think al-Qaeda will enlist for their evil ways in the future? Security does NOT work if we advertise the holes, gaps, exceptions and weaknesses. Physical profiling is not the answer either; once the profile is known, al-Qaeda simply recruits outside the profile.
The Israelis focus on behavior, e.g., nervous appearance, sweating, darting eyes, bulging or odd clothing, et cetera. My experience with the Israelis’ screening procedure is nearly 30 years old and I suspect not current but at least reflective. The process takes time and is rather trained-agent intensive. It is very thorough, but like all security it is not perfect and it is penetrable. To my knowledge, there are no exceptions or exemptions to the Israeli process. We can incorporate some of their process, if we can overcome our rather foolish sense of political correctness. However, given the volume of American air travel, I believe the Israeli screening procedure is impractical for the American and European air travel system.
Personally, I think Americans need to grow up, get past our prudishness and modesty regarding our bodies, and put these security procedures in perspective. However, as always, “That’s just my opinion, but I could be wrong.”
. . . a follow-up comment:
“I understand where you're coming from, Cap, but I disagree on the ‘prudishness and modesty regarding our bodies’ comment. I think this goes more to a 4th Amendment issue, and to our right not to be manhandled to that extent when we have done nothing wrong. I certainly do not agree with excluding anyone from the security checks at airports, but there must be better ways than the present system. I also feel the TSA is endemic of a larger problem, the lack of respect by government agencies to the people they serve, and now we are seeing the consequences of this. My hope is that things change before we start seeing incidents of violence result from this. I do admit, there probably are no easy answers in this. We can't let every single security procedure turn into a violation of civil rights like the ACLU sees it, but again, how far is too far with all this?”
. . . my follow-up response:
Then, we shall respectfully disagree. I do not see this enhanced screening procedure as a violation of our precious 4th Amendment rights. We could take any question, any action, by a government agent as an intrusion on our privacy, but we must ask to what end? The Israelis ask a barrage of questions in multiple layers like where are you going, how did you pay for your ticket, when are you returning? Do you think there are citizens who would object to being asked such personal questions? I again respectfully submit that receiving a thorough pat down by a TSA agent at a security screening checkpoint is NOT the same as the same pat down by a police officer at a traffic stop looking for a bong. We must put these procedures in perspective. Nonetheless, we can agree to disagree.
A comment on this week’s dose of WikiLeaks disclosures:
“Maybe I am reading too many trashy Vince Flynn novels but I'd like to see Julian Assange floating face up in a river with a tap in the forehead. His smugness (and the people who send him the material) disgust me. I wonder what you think on this issue if ‘free’ speech (however the documents are classified and hence not "free") vs lives in harms way.”
My reply:
Julian Assange and his WikiLeaks website are parasites that feed on the weakness and traitorous conduct of a few American citizens. I cannot even dump on the New York Times and other Press outlets as they are reporting at the second level. The USG continues to label the WikiLeaks disclosures as illegal, and I continue to wait for warrants, arrests and prosecutions. Unfortunately, without a proper declaration of war, the law remains weighted in favor of WikiLeaks and other Press outlets. With the mass, breadth and depth of these disclosures, I am struggling to see how this level of betrayal can be the product of an Army intelligence analyst [Specialist Bradley E. Manning]. Guys like Assange, Manning, and the others have no conscience. There are more traitors in our midst. I recognized the law demands the USG cross all the “t’s” and dot all the “i’s,” but I sure hope they drop the full weight of the USG on these traitors. This has got to stop.
. . . a follow-up comment:
“As for our thread - you aren't wrong and I also wait to see something done. We can only hope.”
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
