Update no.465

Update from the Heartland

No.465

8.11.10 – 14.11.10

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

To all,
The follow-up news items:
-- Special Prosecutor John H. Durham decided to clear the CIA agents and top lawyers at the agency for their roles in the destruction of the interrogation tapes [313], after a three-year investigation, citing insufficient evidence to convict beyond a reasonable doubt. The decision is good and appropriate in part, and tragic in part. The disclosure of those videotapes verged on treason and should not have seen the light of public awareness for 20 years or more. Yet, this episode sets an extraordinarily corrosive precedent that government agents can destroy information / data that is the property of We, the People, and part of our history – good or bad – to avoid prosecution. On whole, this was an understandable but very ominous decision.
-- Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy, on behalf of the Supreme Court, denied the application to vacate the stay entered by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of Log Cabin Republicans v. United States [USDC CA(CD) case no. cv-04-08425-VAP (2010)] [456/7, 461]. Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this application. The Supremes’ ruling comes amid multitudinous leaks of the DoD study on the potential repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) [PL 103-160] [312, 408]. I shall refrain from speculation based on leaked snippets, for the time being, as I eagerly await the released report. Also, I suspect the Supremes would prefer a legislative action rather than rule on Judge Phillips’ constitutionality decision regarding DADT.

On Veteran’s Day, 11.November.2010, we celebrated the noble service of all veterans who served, sacrificed, and continue to serve this Grand Republic today. For our British and European brothers, the day is called Remembrance Day or Poppy Day. God bless them all. On the day, CNN reported on supposedly leaked results of the Defense Department’s staff study on the potential repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) [PL 103-160] and claimed 40% of the repeal resistance rests within the Marine Corps. The former and present Commandants of the Marine Corps have publicly stated their counsel against repeal. On the same day, another blog remembered an earlier opinion.
“Don't Repeal ‘Don't Ask/Don't Tell’ – Don't sacrifice unit cohesion for a social experiment”
by Stuart Koehl
The Weekly Standard - The Blog
Published: JUN 15, 2010; 12:00 AM
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/dont-repeal-dont-askdont-tell
I have just two questions in the context of this debate. Is freedom a social experiment? Are civil rights a social experiment?
I am a proud, now old, former Marine. Many of my brothers have supported and repeated the Commandant’s admonition . . . some in typically very stark, harsh terms that cause any citizen pause. General Amos is of my generation. He lived similar experiences all Marines of my generation endured. I mentally joined the Marines as a young teenager as I immersed myself in the words of Leon Uris’ autobiographical novel “Battle Cry.” I joined the Brotherhood on 3.June.1970, when I was commissioned a Lieutenant of Marines. The two decades of the 60’s & 70’s were traumatic, tumultuous years – the Vietnam War, assassination of our leaders, conscription, the vast schism that erupted between the military doing its duty and the majority of the People, and the cataclysmic racial strife and subsequent integration. The Marine Corps has always been the most conservative of the armed services for understandable and justifiable reasons. It has also been the most “Southern” of the armed services, and as a consequence, the most resistant to racial integration. You have only to read the words of Lieutenant General Frank E. Petersen, USMC (Ret.) in his autobiography, “Into the Tiger’s Jaw – America’s First Black Marine Aviator.” I was only a junior officer as the leadership of the Marine Corps stood up (with many against their personal beliefs) and educated every single Marine regarding the importance and necessity of racial integration. The Press seems to enjoy pointing its implicitly accusatory finger at the resistance of Marine leaders to the repeal of DADT. I have not the slightest doubt that Marine leaders will once again stand tall and perform their duty in an exemplary manner when DADT is repealed and sexual orientation is eliminated as a concern or criterion for service to this Grand Republic.
My answers to the questions posed: NO! Freedom and equal rights apply to all of us or none of us; they are NOT a social experiment. One day, hopefully in the not too distant future, all American citizens will enjoy the same Liberty to pursue their choices for Happiness. Life is too short.

Nobel-laureate Aung San Suu Kyi of Myanmar (Burma) was finally released from house arrest after spending 15 of the last 21 years under junta restriction. The country is still a long way from democracy, but long journeys begin with small steps.

Does it seem odd to anyone else that we are recognizing the freedom of a democracy advocate in Myanmar in the same edition as we discuss the struggle for equal rights for all American citizens?

News from the economic front:
-- People's Bank of China (PBC) intends to raise the banks’ reserve requirement ratio by half a percentage point, the 4th increase this year, as concerns about excessive liquidity increase. The action comes after the PRC reported its biggest monthly trade surplus in three months for October, and as the Federal Reserve's injected US$600B into the U.S. market, adding to concerns about inflation and asset bubbles.
-- The Commerce Department reported the U.S. trade deficit contracted sharply in September to US$44.00B from US$46.48B, as gaps with PRC and other major trading partners narrowed. U.S. imports fell 1.0% on declining demand for oil and auto imports. Exports hit their highest level in a little over two years, boosted by record-high services exports.
-- The Labor Department reported weekly jobless claims declined by 24,000, but still remain elevated at 435,000.

Comments and contributions from Update no.464:
“It's your blog. You deserve to write anything you want. I generally read your rants with a mixture of respect and incredulity. We all have blind spots. I know I do.
“However, if you truly are 'far less concerned about Barack & the Dems than [you are] sanctimonious Republicans' then perhaps we don't have as much in common as I thought we did. I simply cannot believe you used the word sanctimonious without referring to the Pelosi-Reid-Obama triumvirate; after the last 21 months, an unforgivable oversight (or blind spot) in my opinion.
“I would go on, but quite frankly this one is not worth the effort. To each his own, I guess.”
My reply:
Oh my, I never thought of myself as a lost cause, but such is life.
On the other hand, I take the risk to offer my opinion on various contemporary issues, not to hear myself talk, but to stimulate public debate. I came close to being successful with last week’s Update; however, I am sorry you did not feel the discussion / debate was worth the effort. Une fois de plus, c’est la vie.
A handful of years back, the Left could find nothing President Bush did well, or for the good of the country, and they consistently condemned the President at virtually every opportunity, for any reason. Now, the shoe is on the other foot, and the Right cannot find one thing President Obama has done well for the good of the country. I have been a non-partisan, independent all of my voting life and will be until my last vote. I found plenty to criticize “Dubs,” just as I have plenty to criticize Barack, but I also see the good in both.
The interesting word in the definition of “sanctimonious” is religious. This can be a very long discussion, if you wish. However, allow me one more pass. I am upset, nay angry, that both parties spend our money like drunken sailors . . . and that is an insult to our nautical brothers. For one group of them to point their crooked little accusatory fingers at the other group is the ultimate in arrogant, political, faux-superiority, and the two groups switch places on a regular basis and nothing changes. So, please don’t misinterpret my words to assume I am giving “Barack and the Dems” a pass – far from it.
The Right is far more likely to dictate choices we are allowed to make in our private lives; they seem to be perfectly happy denying choices to other citizens to affirm or validate their choices – the latest example of which is the Issacs case I reviewed last week. I see good and bad in everyone; we are all flawed characters; so, let’s try to find some balance in our critique.
Being this is a politically charged discussion, I would suggest we focus on one topic. Perhaps I am a lost cause. At least you took the time to tell me so, and I am thankful for that. Back to you, my friend.
. . . round two:
“I never disagreed with your main point. Spending is out of control and much of it is pure political pork. Agree. Agree. Agree. In the long run though, politics is politics – the art of the possible. Any man that has ever answered the question ‘honey does this dress make me look fat’ is keenly aware that the high road is sometimes a dead end. Like you, I’ve always considered myself non-partisan, but in my opinion this Country has been on an unacceptable course with Pelosi-Reid-Obama policies and nothing is more important than checking that slide into the morass of big mommy-government socialism.
“As far as spending goes, as a Nation, as a culture we must get out of the mindset that throwing money at people makes them happy and that in fact money is the answer to all problems: education, social justice, prisons, immigration, etc. etc. It is not. It is only the easiest. Easiest, that is if you are giving away other people's money. As someone said recently, we not rich enough to be this stupid and we must change the way we look at major problems. As with all social/cultural issues, however, just telling America she looks fat in her size 28 money-dress isn't going to solve the problem.
“Maybe I'm the lost cause. I can't even keep my own mouth shut after promising to do so.”
. . . my reply to round two:
OK; now we can dispense with the “lost cause” shtick. LOL
We are also agreed on the vital requirement to cut spending . . . I do believe. I’ve been surprised and impressed with PM Cameron’s expense cutting initiatives; painful . . . but pain is necessary to advance.
Obama did not create the economic crisis; successive administrations going back at least to Carter and including Reagan & Bush 41 tee’d this one up, aided by a complicit Federal Reserve that recognized and understood the potential consequence of mounting debt and the absolute folly of the sub-prime mortgage nonsense; and yet, again, successive administrations turned a blind eye. We had plenty of warning signs, but we chose to ignore them. Obama chose to extend the government “bailout” begun by “Dubs” & his administration. We can argue the wisdom of the ARRA {American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (PL 111-005) [374]}, and we can certainly damn the largesse of Congress in using an economic bandage to attach more freakin’ earmarks. I could go on . . . ad infinitum, ad nauseum; let it suffice to say, I do not agree with the premise that Barack seeks socialism in the classic sense. I do not like parts of the PPACA {Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PL 111-148) [432]}, and yet our health care system is a dichotomy of magnificence and disgrace. We pay for the health care of the poor & illegal aliens either way. Go spend an afternoon in the Emergency Room of any city hospital and continuously ask yourself who is paying for each person’s medical care. I did not appreciate the way PPACA was done, and I certainly do not agree with or endorse some elements. Yet, to take a personal, highly sensitive issue to illustrate my point . . . Sarah Palin’s “Death Panel” pronouncement launched me into near-Earth orbit; not only was it an outright lie, a falsehood, it was an intentional deception intended to appeal to the emotions of the socially conservative Right and moral projectionists for political gain. So, I may not like everything “Barack & the Dems” were doing or the way they were doing it, but at least they were trying to recognize our freedom of choice. Barack is not as bad as the naysayers like to portray him. Let’s at least give him a little credit.
In a capitalist society, money is always the easy path. We also retain our penchant for instant gratification, our impatience with protracted solutions, and our attraction to an ill-defined, feel-good factor. I believe we agree – we simply must stop spending money as a solution. I advocate for banning all earmarks, except perhaps those associated with a national emergency (and I’m not entirely convinced of that either). If it is important enough to spend from the Treasury, then it is important enough to withstand the illumination & scrutiny of public debate. I also want all the fat out of the Defense budget; the fraud, waste & abuse of Medicare; I advocate for elimination of all the damnable Federal subsidies to mega-farms and the myriad of other forms of largesse. I want the repeal of the Controlled Substance Act of 1970, the dissolution of the DEA, and empowerment of the FDA to regulate commerce in psychotropic substances. I could go on & on, but I think you get the picture. Medicare goes back to Johnson; the DEA back to Nixon; farm subsidies back to Roosevelt. So let’s not heap all the bad on Barack. We share some culpability in our acquiescence to these foolish, sometimes draconian, laws.
. . . round three:
“Reasonable men can and often do disagree. If you really believe that this 'health care' initiative was about giving poor people health care then we should have just set aside 30M (not even as much spent as on the PR campaign for ObamaCare) and called it good, instead of taking over a fifth of the economy. We could set aside 30M a year for the foreseeable future and it wouldn't even be a drop in the bucket by comparison. Of course taking on the lawyers and unions and reducing bureaucracy would have been much tougher
“Yes, Republicans spend money too. Old arguments, all of yours, all of mine and neither of us have time to go into enough historical detail to make it anything more than bumper sticker opinions. One might look at what the money was spent on. Reagan, for instance. Fixing 20 years of neglect of the military was certainly costly. As opposed to Obama making the trillion dollar plus health care bill, wealth redistribution and demonizing private industry more important than recovering from the recession.
“I'm glad someone like you continues to fight to present a 'balanced view.' Hang in there; it's going to get tougher.”
. . . my reply to round three:
Indeed . . . and I must add, reasonable men should disagree. After all, it is the intercourse of debate that helps us find compromise, to negotiate solutions, to refine our ideas, concepts and opinions, and to find balance in our collective lives.
I make no claim that PPACA is a perfect law – far from it; however, it is a worthy attempt to resolve a national disgrace and to flush out the hidden costs that have so drastically inflated the health care costs to each and every one of us. Representative John Andrew Boehner of Ohio publicly pronounces, even before he has the job, that his first & no.1 priority is repeal of PPACA; such talk ignores the good in PPACA and IMHO is purely & solely politically driven without the slightest hint of reality. It is this foolish, destructive, corrosive, extreme, political partisanship that raises my anger and ire. Like all Federal legislation these days, the obscenity of political largesse taints the good. So, let’s improve PPACA rather than discard it.
We can take that tack on what Congress has spent money on within each administration. I supported Reagan’s spending on renovation of our military & national security apparatus. However, to suggest that spending under Reagan was all good and under Obama is all bad, is just simply wrong. Reagan did good, and so has Obama done good.
I simply advocate for realistic balance in our political debate, based on facts rather than political dogma. PPACA, like ARRA and TARP [Troubled Asset Relief Program as part of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (PL 110-343) [355]}, is an authorization, not checks cashed. Assumptions went into its costing calculations; some of those assumptions will be under-statements, some will be over-statements.
I suspect we agree that “demonizing” the health insurance industry is mis-applied political rhetoric. The health insurance industry is at least partially a product of ill-advised, near-monopolistic, state laws that exclude competition. Regardless, even the insurance companies cannot deal with the hidden costs added to the overhead of every health care dollar. Until we attack those hidden costs, we have no hope of bringing those costs down to a more reasonable level.
. . . round four:
“Agreed again. Serious debate is healthy. (No pun intended)
“Your ‘not all Reagan spending was good’ comment, however, is a rather cheap debate trick. First I certainly never suggested that all Reagan spending was good. Second, it suggests that I do not recognize the obvious point that nothing is ever 'all good' or 'all bad'. It also allows you to ignore any real analysis of the two administrations' spending priorities and thereby letting you maintain the high road while still defending (with a non-defense) the current administration. I can get all the crap like that I need from Glen Beck and Chris Mathews. I really do expect more from you. No offense intended.
“ObamaCare is not about reforming the health care industry. We'll just have to agree to disagree on that one. If it were they would not have exempted the unions, lawyers and inter-state competition.
“It should be thrown out and the debate should be re-started, or rather it should begin since there was none to begin with. I certainly agree with Boehner. And as far as 'foolish, destructive, corrosive, extreme, political partisanship' raising your ire, where was all that righteous indignation when the 2000 page, unread behemoth was being shoved down our throats without any of the healthy debate that is supposed to take place BEFORE any significant legislation? I'm sorry, but that's just too much of the pot calling the kettle black.
“I'll let you have the last word my friend. Perhaps someday you and I can sit down over a 'purple slurpy' and have a real discussion on the future of this great Nation. Enjoy your Birthday [Marine Birthday] and let's raise a glass to all those young heroes that know their actions speak louder than any of our words, no matter how passionate, clever or well-meaning.”
. . . my reply to round four:
This is turning into quite the tête-à-tête. Excellent!
My “rather cheap debate trick” was not intended as such. At worst, it was an avoidance . . . to acknowledge reality while making my primary and sole point – we need balance. We can conduct a progressive, productive, public debate on serious issues as long as we level the playing field. When an argument presented ignores relevant facts or refuses to at least implicitly acknowledge other valid counter-arguments, we tend to quickly stratify into polar extremes, resulting in concomitant intransigence. To further this exchange, I would be happy to cite my past criticism of the PPACA debate, legislative process, and elements of content to affirm my resistance (my consistent ire) to what and how PPACA was done, if you think it productive. As I said, I have not and will not give any President a pass. I try not to fall victim to the very techniques I rail against in my rhetoric.
If I left you with the impression that PPACA is the definitive reformation of the health care industry, then I failed to communicate properly. If so, my most humble apologies. PPACA is far from perfect, but it is a start . . . and since no other Congress has been able to get a comparable bill to a floor vote, the Obama administration deserved credit for the attempt. We shall respectfully disagree; John Boehner has not offered an alternative. He has only advocated for a return to the status quo ante, which I humbly and respectfully submit is regressive, and ultimately divisive and consequently destructive. Such a move says there is nothing in PPACA worth saving, supporting or improving; again, I believe such action to be destructive.
FYI: I do not want the last word . . . only a continuing word. Back to you.

A contribution to the Blog:
“I apologize for the lateness of this contribution.
“I seriously doubt that anything in Wichita is in any danger of being ‘dominated’ by Latinos.
“I share the sentiment ‘If you don't vote, don't complain.’ I like to express myself, positive or negative, so I do my little duty by voting.
“Speaking of voting, the voters here in Ohio have elected a governor who has told people to "get on the bus or get run over." Even here, we rarely elect anyone that crude. I'll go ahead and complain before we get to the substantive issues. I didn't like him even before he spent time working for Lehman Brothers.”
My response to the Blog:
Everyone is always welcome to comment on any edition at any time. So, thank you for taking the time to offer your comment on Update no.464.
In my review of the Silva ruling, we were discussing children in school, who were most likely bullies. We are not talking about adults in an active society. To my knowledge, Wichita has very little racial strife or even discord. The point of my opinion was the importance of assimilation, not separation or isolation. What we know from the court documents, those children were not trying to assimilate.
Kansans elected Sam Brownback as our next governor. He is a good and decent man, should be a good governor, but he has a penchant to be a moral projectionist. Governor-elect John Kasich appears to be cut from the same cloth, although perhaps a little more crass that Brownback. Unfortunately, we are in for another period of government telling us how we are to live our lives.
. . . round two:
“I would not look forward to Sam Brownback as governor any more than I do Kasich. Both of them are so intent on cutting taxes, especially for the rich, that less and less money will be available for emergency services, roads, etc. I guess if somebody mugs our governors, they can call the Tea Party for help once the police are gone.”
. . . my response to round two:
Oh my, oh man, we are in absolute, complete agreement. I have never been a fan of Brownback or Kasich, and I doubt that is going to change; they are both moral projectionists and you know how I feel about that trait. As I’ve said many times already and will undoubtedly say many times again, cutting taxes is comparable to trying to solve an equation with only half the argument – it cannot be done. We must get serious about reducing expenses and more importantly about the serious debate over what exactly to cut. When we have a revenue surplus, then we can and should cut taxes. As long as Republicans are allowed to chant their mantra with impunity, we will not be allowed to solve the equation.
. . . round three:
“We remain in agreement about the imposition of moral values on others, but that is only one aspect of the threat from radical conservatives.
“I believe that tax cuts cannot go on simply because government services have already been cut to dangerous levels. Police and firefighters must be paid, roads must be maintained, bankers must be regulated. Ultimately, these services cost tax dollars. Neither cutting taxes nor reducing services further is safe.”
. . . my response to round three:
There are only two arguments in the equation – revenue minus expenses. “Neither cutting taxes nor reducing services further is safe.” If so, what is the solution? Divine providence? We do not get the option of doing nothing . . . frozen in the headlights.
. . . round four:
“We have no politician at present who has both the prominence and the backbone to admit that the only solution is to increase revenue. People want police protection, roads, armies, and all the rest of it, but they have acquired the delusion that this can be done without paying for it. Worse yet, some want to rely on private, for-profit entities to guard the best interests of all Americans. Not gonna happen.”
. . . my response to round four:
“ . . . only solution is to increase revenue.” This is where we diverge; you know my opinion. Nonetheless, there are two elements of the revenue argument – tax rate and quantity. I do understand the urge to raise taxes (revenue). However, I respectfully submit the best way to raise the revenue portion is via the quantity element. The reasons we had a surplus during the Clinton administration were low unemployment and the broad success of business. Let us not forget Chief Justice Marshall’s wise words – the power to tax is the power to destroy. There is a threshold out there where raising taxes diminishes economic output, which is ultimately destructive, i.e., as revenue declines, they want to raise taxes more to make up the shortfall. Raising taxes inevitably thwarts small business growth, which is the muscle of the American economic engine. IMHO, FWIW, we cannot tax or will our way out of this hole. We must cut non-essential spending (and by non-essential I mean any spending that does not directly relate to economic recovery and national security; all earmarks; and would get the USG out of the private morality business). I agree with you in that relying on the marketplace to be self-policing is like relying on gunslingers to show self-restraint in the saloon or on Main Street. Lastly, the best way to raise revenue is by stimulating business.

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