Update no.472

Update from the Heartland

No.472

27.12.10 – 2.1.11

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

To all,

Happy New Year! May this year be the best and most prosperous for everyone.

The follow-up news items:
-- After the Cohen opinion last week [471], we have another exalted rendering:
“‘Don't ask, don't tell’ has been repealed. ROTC still shouldn't be on campus”
by Colman McCarthy
Washington Post
Published: Thursday, December 30, 2010
http://link.email.washingtonpost.com/r/MEPMRJ/727J75/PRN8ZZ/K66PVC/FLN4X/RF/h
McCarthy said, “To oppose ROTC, as I have since my college days in the 1960s, when my school enticed too many of my classmates into joining, is not to be anti-soldier.” At least he is honest with himself and us. He went on to conclude, “ROTC and its warrior ethic taint the intellectual purity of a school, if by purity we mean trying to rise above the foul idea that nations can kill and destroy their way to peace. If a school such as Harvard does sell out to the military, let it at least be honest and add a sign at its Cambridge front portal: Harvard, a Pentagon Annex.” It never ceases to amaze me how folks who claim to be intellectually enlightened can be so shallow. McCarthy’s opinion is just as foolish as Cohen’s opinion last week. The issue of DADT is one milestone on a long journey to achieve equal rights for all citizens regardless of the social factors. The great, celebratory aspect of McCarthy’s opinion . . . there are sufficient citizens who believe in the foundational principles of this Grand Republic that volunteer their lives to defend the rights of people like McCarthy, Cohen and me to speak freely. May God bless all those who stand guard at the gates to protect the freedom we cherish and enjoy.
-- The issue of Death Panels [400, 404, 413] has been resurrected apparently.
“Death Panels Revisited – The left won't admit that Sarah Palin had a point about rationed care.
REVIEW & OUTLOOK
Wall Street Journal
Published: December 29, 2010
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203731004576045702803914780.html?mod=djemEditorialPage_h
Public debate regarding the rationing of health care needs to happen in an objective, unemotional manner. While we carry out that debate, we also need to address Death with Dignity [215, 349A, 366, 375, 399, 406]. One of the undeniable, absolute sureties in life . . . we all will die. I intend to live as long as I possibly can. When my time comes, I hope, as I am sure many others do as well, that the end is quick and painless. Regardless, I cherish freedom, and I want to exercise my last act of freedom rather suffer a slow, lingering death. So, if we are going to have this debate, let us argue the whole issue, not just the end of life rationing of health care.

The next segment may not be of interest to very many of the Update readers, but the history buff in me could not resist. So, here goes . . . .
“Nazis Were Given ‘Safe Haven’ in U.S., Report Says”
by Eric Lichtblau
New York Times
Published: November 13, 2010
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/14/us/14nazis.html
The article along with some flash Press coverage found little public traction, but it definitely peaked my interest. I took the time to read the leaked internal government report – all 617 pages worth – regarding the investigation and consequent action with respect to individuals accused of persecuting others. The report at issue:
“The Office of Special Investigations: Striving for Accountability in the Aftermath of the Holocaust”
by Judy Feigin
Edited by Mark M Richard, Former Deputy Assistant Attorney General
Department of Justice (DoJ), Criminal Division
Dated: December 2006
The document attempts to chronicle the U.S. Government’s handling of alleged war crimes cases originally from World War II that were beyond the scope of the various war crimes trials at Nürnberg (1945-1949). Since mostly European Theater individuals with Axis affiliation emigrated, tried to emigrate, or visited the United States of America, the DoJ document focused predominately on Nazi-affiliates (only 9 of 617 pages address the Pacific Theater actions). Press reports in the 1970’s illuminated a number of questionable characters that had become U.S. citizens under a couple of finite refugee laws in 1948 and 1953, or were inside the United States (application pending). Congressional interest and hearings resulted in the Holtzman Amendment [PL 95-549; 8 U.S.C. § 1182] to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 [PL 82-414; 8 U.S.C. § 1101], which was signed into law by President Carter on 30.October.1978. The new law expanded the definition of excludable affiliations to include the Waffen-SS – the combat arm of the infamous Schutzstaffel – and more significantly the Allgemeine-SS – the Universal SS – that encompasses many of the indigenous camp guards utilized by the Nazis to carry out der Endlösung von die Judenfrage – the Final Solution of the Jewish Question. As a consequence of the congressional attention and armed with the new law, the Attorney General created the Office of Special Investigations (OSI) created on 4.September.1979 (by AG Order No. 851-79). The DoJ document deals with predominately guards employed by the SS at the array of concentration camps, death camps and prisoner of war camps. As a quick side note, I know the names of most of the camps (I would never claim all); in reading the DoJ document and doing collateral research, I learned the names of many more, which adds to the tragic scope of the Holocaust. The author utilized a couple dozen cases to illustrate various aspects of the law, the productivity of the OSI, and the performance of the United States in general, regarding the fraudulent immigration of “persecutors,” as they called those who aided the Nazis in their crimes against humanity. The OSI still exists and continues its work albeit at a far slower pace since most of the subjects are deceased or nearly so. OSI fully processed 130 cases, closed an estimated 600 cases when the subject individuals died, and prevented 170 others from entering the country. In toto, the number of cases involving individuals from the Baltic States – Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania – struck me as rather odd given the scope of World War II. More than a few police and paramilitary men welcomed the Germans as liberators from the oppression of the Soviets and willingly joined the Germans, going after the communists. Three months after helping the Nazi SS-Einsatzgruppen expunge the communists in the Baltic States, the order came down from Berlin to widen their targets to include Jews, gypsies and others the Nazis defined as untermenschen – in for a penny, in for a pound – one oppressor for another. I say this not to absolve the persecutors, but rather to define context. The offenses of Jacob Tannenbaum were not even remotely comparable to those of SS-Standartenführer Dr. Martin Sandberger. [As a telling side note, Sandberger was the commander of Sonderkommando 1a of Einsatzgruppe A (the largest of the SS mobile killing groups); he was sentenced to death by hanging at Nürnberg; when influential friends intervened, his sentence was commuted to life imprisonment, and he was released after only 6 years in Landsberg Prison; Sandberger died 30.March.2010, at the age of 98.] Most German Nazi prosecutions were carried out under the Nürnberg tribunals rather than the aegis of the OSI. However, the DoJ report illuminated the U.S. Government’s involvement with and protection of a number of hardcore Nazis, like SS-Hauptsturmführer Freiherr Otto Albrecht Alfred von Bolschwing (an associate of SS-Obersturmbannführer Karl Adolf Eichmann, the so-called architect of the Holocaust), SS- Hauptsturmführer Robert Peter Jan Verbelen, and SS-Hauptsturmführer Nikolaus “Klaus” Barbie (the infamous Butcher of Lyons). Not to belabor our little saunter through history, one of the more interesting cases among those identified in the DoJ document highlighted Johann Breyer – a Slovakian man born to an American mother and Slovakian father of German descent, who joined the Waffen-SS and transferred to SS-Totenkopfsturmbann ("Death's Head" Battalion), where he was assigned as a guard at Buchenwald and Auschwitz. As the DoJ document described his case, “Several factors distinguish the prosecution of Johann Breyer from other OSI cases:
“(1) it raised unusual equal protection and gender discrimination issues;
“(2) it involved expatriation (renunciation of citizenship) as well as denaturalization; and
“(3) the defendant sued the media over its coverage of the case.”
Breyer claimed constitutional protections afforded U.S. citizens, even though he had never set foot on the territory of the United States prior to World War II. He emigrated to the U.S. in 1952, and became a naturalized citizen in 1957. OSI filed its denaturalization action in 1992. The court challenge centered upon an act to amend the law relative to citizenship [PL 73-250; 24.May.1934], which made the birthright law gender neutral; Breyer was born in 1925. He won his challenge and remains a U.S. citizen. Thus, I return to the title of the original Times-Lichtblau article. What reaction did you have to the title? After reading the article and then the entire DoJ document, I have very mixed views and some not good. At the least offensive level, the title and representation by the article were unfair and just sensationalism cynically used to sell newspapers. Clearly, there are elements that validate the Times title, but in my humble opinion, the article barely scratches the surface of a very complex historic phenomenon.

News from the economic front:
-- The Standard & Poor's/Case-Shiller index reported that prices of single-family homes dropped 1.3% in all 20 regions it tracks. The District of Columbia region was one of the few that bucked the trend – gee, I wonder why that might be.

Comments and contributions from Update no.471:
Comment to the Blog:
“I guess I'll begin with the Macondo Well/Deepwater Horizon issue. First, I'll point out that the ‘cold facts’ aren't always all that cold. People made decisions about what to include in the reports and how to interpret that. (More on the "human factor" below.) Beyond that, I have no petroleum engineering background to help me understand the reports, nor do I have the leisure time available to read them even if I could understand. I share this with most of the population. Those who read the New York Times story and other in-depth reports will be a minority, but will be more informed than most people. I myself may settle for a summary of the Times story, together with similar sources that I follow. Most people will retain some part of what their TV news tells them, if they watch even TV news. My point is that if you seek to sway public opinion, you need to recognize that little to no technical information will actually reach most of them and what does will not be written by experts but by reporters.
“As far as Professor MacMillan's discussion of reparations, I suspect that upon further study I would disagree with her particular conclusions. More importantly here, I do not believe that the reparations issue compares realistically with the European Union financial mess. Especially, the World Wars were brought about by national governments; the financial disasters were brought about by bankers and investors. As a result of that, the damages addressed by the Treaty of Versailles were done by national armies acting as the agents of their governments, which were then penalized, fairly or unfairly. The current financial damages trace back to corporate interests. While lax or corrupt regulators undoubtedly played a part, the comparison to the Treaty of Versailles is not accurate.
“While the FCC has at last addressed Net neutrality, someone will have to define what is ‘unreasonable’ discrimination. Given the current regulatory climate, people paying more money to providers could achieve discrimination in their favor and this might not be seen as ‘unreasonable.’
“In the discussion of ‘Don't Ask, Don't Tell’ (DADT), my first point is that I agree with you about the danger of ‘yes men.’ However, the military, generals and all, ought to keep its discussions internal, not in the media. At all times in all ways, the military must submit to civilian control. The appropriate thing for each of these generals to express to the press is, ‘We will carry out the will of the President and the Congress. Our personal opinions play no part in that.’
“The report you summarized seems a pretty reasonable plan for implementing the repeal of DADT. The benefits issue will frustrate people, but a waiting period fits the situation. Some of the corporations are actually ahead of the government in this respect, but it's appropriate for the military to await some level of clarity from the civilian government.
“I will note that it took nine years to pass the bill in support of the survivors of 9/11. That is a disgrace. We rush to kill people overseas who may or may not be a threat to us, but it took this long to help those actually harmed already. That portends more trouble for veterans, too. It seems that once people serve their purposes, the government loses interest in them.
“I commend to you the study of the human factor. Regardless of engineering excellence or contribution to humanity, human factors shape every decision made by humans. Whether and how someone understands what they read and hear and how they respond to it will always be influenced by their emotional state, their personal history, and their beliefs about people. This influences the results of everything you discuss here.”
My response to the Blog:
Re: Macondo Well disaster. Very well said and spot on, which is precisely why I am compelled to look beyond the Press reports to the facts. I have too much first hand experience with the Press sensationalization of accidents – aircraft, automobiles, and even oil wells. I understand the short space the Press has to convey their opinion of an accident. The Times essay on the Macondo Well disaster was very well done, good graphics, and exceptional rendition of the consequences to the personnel. However, they failed to represent the cause factors, as is usually the case; they simplify the cause factors too much. As a consequence, the Times’ very impressive essay leaves the public with the image that BP, Transocean and Halliburton are either inept or felonious in their operation of the Deepwater Horizon rig, which is not an accurate representation of the facts. Thus, the public has an erroneous view of deepwater oil exploration or at least the conduct of those companies in such operations, and bad political decisions will often result.
Re: Treaty of Versailles. Well said all the way around.
Re: Net Neutrality. Again, well said. There are valid reasons for the government to regulate Internet access and capacity. However, perhaps because I have not felt an access or capacity issue with my Internet usage, I am not the most fearful of access. The privacy concerns are far more insidious and thus far more vulnerable and sensitive.
Re: DADT. I believe General Amos’ comments were before a congressional committee. It is public, but not the media . . . even though the media covers public hearings. General Amos stated the professional opinion of the Marine Corps he leads and represents, not the politically correct desired response – his professional obligation, I contend. General Amos was very careful to add that the Marines will do their duty. If my experience with racial integration in the 1960’s & 1970’s has any validity, I think the Marine Corps will set a very high standard of performance in accomplishing the objectives of the implementation plan. Semper Fidelis!
Yes, there are confounding and complicating contrary laws that must be resolved and reconciled before all citizens achieve equal rights and protection under the law without regard to sexual orientation.
Perhaps your assessment of the government’s performance regarding the 9/11 health benefits is a bit harsh.
Human factors engineering has been an important discipline of engineering in general for many decades and a very important part of cockpit design. I must add in all fairness . . . my assessment of the Deepwater Horizon controls, while sophisticated in the mechanical aspects of deepwater oil drilling exploration, seem to lag aviation engineering by a substantial margin with respect to situation awareness and human interaction. Based on all the information I have seen, the DH operators lacked good situational awareness and hesitated when timely decisions were required. Rig designers and operators will learn from the Macondo accident and will make future accidents less likely.
. . . a follow-up comment:
“Two more points on the Macondo Well/Deepwater Horizon disaster.
“(A) How do you support your statement that claims of ineptness or felonious conduct by BP, TransOcean, and Halliburton are ‘not an accurate statement of the facts’? Until the thorough engineering investigation you seek is completed, or at least until the courts speak, no conclusion can be supported, pro or con. Those statements may very well be accurate; only time will tell.
“(B) In terms of human factors, the New York Times report discusses, in part, a 30-page blowout safety manual that was a ‘safety engineer's dream’ or something similar, but which was not useful to the people actually making decisions. It specified both the need to act quickly and the need to not over-react, but gave no information about what situation triggered which set of actions.
“If General Amos's comments were made to a Congressional hearing, I would have more sympathy for that situation. Any number of people have the experience of becoming a political football, but few or none of them choose that. Unfortunately, Congressional testimony is one of the risks of high rank. Ordinarily, it can and will be used against any given officer if and when that is expedient for any party.
“Perhaps my assessment of the government's treatment of the 9-11 responder's is harsh, but I have yet to see evidence contradicting my statement. Perhaps the human aftermath of the attack is just not as interesting to politicians as their own egos and electability.”
. . . my follow-up response:
My humble apologies . . . I should have added the qualifier “based on the facts I have reviewed.” I have read the BP engineering report as well as parts of the government’s engineering report. I will read the government’s whole accident report when it becomes available. Based on the available facts I have reviewed so far, there is no indication of inept or felonious conduct.
You drew attention to the BP safety manual. The BP report refers to the safety manual repeatedly. The difficulty in this instance, as with many accident sequences, comes with presenting the human operator accurate timely information to aid proper decision-making. Aviation cockpit design has improved vastly over the last three decades, but still needs to evolve. My impression from reading the various bits of information regarding the sequence of events in the Macondo accident leaves me with the impression that the human operators on the rig did not and could not understand what was happening 17,000 feet below them. Proper actions were taken too late in the sequence.
I must say, regarding the Macondo accident, there were bad management decisions that contributed to the events of the 20th. BP cut corners in a few critical steps not least of which was testing the characteristics of the driller’s mud inserted to seal the well bore, and the maintenance of the operational status of one of the two control modules on the BOP. Yes, I am certain the final analysis will show some bad management on the rig. However, it sure does appear to me so far that the actual accident sequence occurred because of inadequate situational awareness, and as a consequence, late intervention decisions. We all continue to wait for the final report.
Excellent observation re: congressional hearings and political footballs. Thus, I stand with General Amos. Richard Cohen is simply flat wrong.
There is much more to the story beyond the emotional heart-play of health care for the 9/11 responders and recovery personnel. Regardless, the law is now the law.

Another contribution:
“For anyone daring to condemn General Amos for his frank comments about DADT as did Richard Cohen, what do you desire? Leaders who fail to speak their minds when asked? Furthermore, after reading below the full text of General Amos comments at his confirmation hearing, perhaps we might agree that we should seek and find more leaders like him who are willing to speak their mind, and also willing to commit to implement the laws of the USA even if they disagree. Below are the accurate comments from General Amos when asked by Senator Levin what he would do if the law is repealed. I say this a leader's leader displaying wisdom we wish upon all our leaders. In effect, Cohen is wrong.
“AMOS:
“‘Mr. Chairman, the Marine Corps is probably one of the most faithful services you have in our country. And if the law is changed by Congress and signed by the president of the United States, the Marine Corps will get in step and do it smartly.’”
My response:
Spot on! ‘Nuf said. Nice complement to my opinion.

A different contribution:
“The article is saw on the teen birth rate dropping suggested it was because of the financial crisis of our country. I am glad that it has dropped, however do not understand how the financial crisis affected it. It seems to me it might have an inverse affect on it.”
My response:
I’m with you. I don’t think they have a scientific reason why, but an observation. The declining teen birth rate is good. I’m not so sure about the declining overall birthrate is such a good thing for any reason for a healthy population.

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