Update no.493

Update from the Heartland

No.493

23.5.11 – 29.5.11

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

To all,
The follow-up news items:
-- U.S. District Judge Larry Alan Burns of the Southern District of California ruled that the accused assassin of Representative Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona [473] was mentally unfit to stand trial. Two expert witnesses testified that Loughner suffers from schizophrenia. The judge committed Loughner to a mental treatment facility in an effort to make him fit to stand trial for his crimes. I surely hope the doctors are successful. We have yet another example of the societal challenges we face when prosecuting mentally ill criminals. I struggle with the ethical dilemma. I have a very hard time accepting the mental incompetence defense when an individual plans and executes a mass killing at close range. It was not a spontaneous emotional act. We can argue whether he knew right from wrong, but he was certainly sane enough to know precisely when, where and how to execute his plan.
-- The Bureau d'Enquêtes et d'Analyses pour la Sécurité de l'Aviation Civile (BEA) issued another preliminary report titled: Accident to the Airbus A330-203 flight AF 447 on 1st June 2009 – Update on Investigation, dated: 27 May 2011 . The four-page report is a very brief synopsis of the recovered Flight Data Recorder (FDR) and Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR) data from the ill-fated Air France Flight 447 [391]. Some among the Press have tried to sensationalize snippets of fact, which will not aid public understanding or safety. Chief among those sensationalizations is the fact the captain was not in the cockpit when the event began, which is normal, common practice on long range flights; the captain supervises the takeoff and landing phases and tries to rest during cruise to ensure maximum alertness for the most challenging segments of flight. Further, Press reports suggest the pilots reacted improperly to a confusing situation in the cockpit, which I believe does extraordinary disservice to those charged with flying machines in adversity. The BEA summary suggests the pilots were presented with a cascading set of events, alerts and warning lights. Given modern, large aircraft design, of which the Airbus A330 is among, a statistically very remote (verging on impossible) event occurred. All three, separate airspeed systems presented indications of a stall. The BEA update report does not give us air mass data, proximate weather other than their approach to the InterTropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ), thrust settings, or even correlated crew actions. From other sources, the crew appears to have reacted to the stall warning systems (unfortunately triggered by erroneous airspeed data) using normal procedures, which in turn rapidly complicated their situation. Again, Press renditions reported things like the crew “apparently became distracted with faulty airspeed indications and failed to properly deal with other vital systems . . . .” No official data supports that supposition. So far, it appears the flight may have encountered a little known phenomenon best described as a non-traditional icing environment that may have compromised the pitot probes associated with each airspeed data system. As we are learning, the condition is well beyond contemporary and historic aircraft design practice. My best counsel: let us not be so fast condemning the pilots on that unfortunate flight. We need to learn.
-- As Pakistan’s furor has apparently begun to subside in the wake of Operation NEPTUNE SPEAR [490], the government has agreed to allow the CIA to send a specialized forensics team to examine the Abbottabad compound. The arrangement would allow the CIA to enter the bin Ladin complex for the first time after watching it from a distance, using satellites, stealth drones and spies operating from a nearby safe house.
-- On Friday, reportedly using a remote controlled, auto-pen from the G8 Summit in Deauville, France, President Obama signed into law an extension to the USA PATRIOT Act [111 & sub] first enacted on 26.10.2001 as PL 107-056, and reauthorized on 9.3.2006 as PL 109-177. My usual sources could not keep up. I do not have any details of the extension, as it was enacted fast and late in the week. I know the capability is needed for the current War on Islamic Fascism; however, my skepticism and doubt increases persistently that flawed human beings are incapable of handling such power. I could not affect this latest extension, but I can hope this is the last extension in its present form. Regrettably, we need filters to prevent abused of the power granted by the Act.

A friend and frequent contributor sent along this link:
“6 Crazy, Unconstitutional Laws Right-Wingers Are Blowing Your Money On -- Despite promising to slash government spending, conservatives are apparently willing to break the bank defending their fringe policies in court”
by Joshua Holland
AlterNet
http://www.alternet.org/sex/151033
The six laws Holland listed are:
1. Anti-Sharia Laws
2. Abortion Bills Conflicting with Roe [v. Wade [410 U.S. 113 (1973)] [319]]
3. Nullification Laws
4. States Regulating Immigration
5. Don't Say This or That Laws
6. Financial 'Martial Law'
I agree with the criticism of these political efforts with one exception – no.4. The state laws I have seen to date have not attempted to regulate immigration, only to ensure those individuals in this country are here legally and employed legally. We will continue to debate the immigration situation. I has not hear the term “tenth-ers” (no.3) before, but wow, I can certainly identify that descriptor for those who advocate for their particular brand of Federalism. Regrettably, when you boil down Holland’s six (6) offenses upon our freedom, they all seek to impose upon the private domain, which I cannot accept.
. . . to which our contributor added:
“The point of this particular article was not the wrongness of the causes behind these laws but the legal expense to the states of defending laws that are sure to be overturned. This kind of grandstanding gets very expensive, especially to a less-populated state such as South Dakota.”
. . . along with my reply:
Thank you for the reminder. I understood the point. I went beyond the direct consequences of Federal dicta to what I see as the much larger base issue – using Federal law to impose moral values.

“Circumcision Saved My Life -- San Francisco's proposed ban on the practice could lead to more HIV infections”
by Diane Cole
Wall Street Journal
Published: May 25, 2011
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304066504576343492869888506.html?mod=djemEditorialPage_h
Above, we jumped the right-wing impositions upon on freedom. This is one of the left-wing versions. Let us all stop trying to use the instruments of government to impose on the freedom of choice of other citizens. We, the People, must demand our representatives refrain from passing any more morality laws and to repeal all those such laws on the books today. A law prohibiting circumcision – oh my God – how much more personal and private can we get?

Yet another contributed opinion for discussion and debate:
“I know you have a strong interest in parental involvement and/or responsibility for children. This article is from care2.com (distinctly progressive) on educators who seek to force parents to be involved in their children's education.”
“Who's To Blame? Parents, or Kids?”
posted by: Judy Molland
care2.com
Posted: 24.May.2011
http://www.care2.com/causes/education/blog/whos-to-blame-parents-or-kids/
My opinion:
Laws as noted in the article seem like baby-steps to me, but at least they are positive from my perspective.
I strongly believe in the separation of powers for government . . . and for education. By our broad parental abdication of responsibility, we have allowed government to creep deeper and deeper into our private affairs, so much so that I have felt for years now that governmental intrusion into the private domain threatens our most precious freedoms. Parents all too often look to schools for services far beyond direct content education or even the common law in loco parentis, local custodial protector of children. They want schools to do the parenting, to baby-sit their children, to entertain their children and otherwise occupy them . . . until they can get around to returning to their children’s lives.
We have entrusted schools to teach our children the basics – readin’, writin’ & ‘rithmatic. For a variety of reasons, I think public schools are well suited to perform that task . . . after all, it is the way I learned and our children learned. Where we fail in broad measure is the moral side of education – right from wrong, respect for others, acceptable public conduct, et cetera; that is the domain of families, i.e., private, and not delegate-able. Yet, as is so often the case, we fail miserably to hold parents accountable for the havoc they wrought upon society by their inadequacy, complacency, neglect or abuse of their children. I want parents fully, directly and completely accountable for the “upbringing” of their children, to the extent that if a child commits a crime, the parents commit that crime. I also want the parents legally designated the guardian of any child born to minor, unwed parents – that means both sets of parents of the sperm donor & egg donor. I know that is harsh, but to me, it must be reality. Children being allowed to mature without understanding the consequences of aberrant behavior are simply and completely unacceptable.
If we do not reverse course and demand parental accountability, I am afraid we will never overcome the deeply intrusive, nanny-state, governmental dictation we currently suffer and endure. To me, it is quite simple – public v. private, school v. parents, book learnin’ v. moral learning.
. . . to which came this response:
“I will watch this with interest myself. Regardless of the scorn poured upon them from some state capitals recently, teachers are still the best source of successful education practices. Also, as you have mentioned, preschool and early-grade teachers get the first look at the products of parenting. These initiatives might provide a path for shaping the public behaviors of both parents and children. Of course, I wonder whether parental participation under pressure will have the same good results as truly voluntary participation. Perhaps not, but perhaps so. I certainly think it's worthy of consideration.”
. . . along with my reply:
Like all behavior and moral conduct, self-policing and self-regulation are far better than “forcing” individuals to modify their behavior, but “forcing” change is far better than the laissez faire approach we have defaulted to in the last few decades. In fact, I will be so bold to say that virtually all of the problems we have with public schools can be directly attributed to parents, NOT teachers. I also will say that it is wrong to expect or even ask our teachers to be the default moral teachers for our children. Only We, the People, can demand all parents be held accountable for the moral deficiencies in public conduct, in the “upbringing” of any child. We must decide to change societal behavior.

Comments and contributions from Update no.492:
Comment to the Blog:
“I lose the meaning of your first paragraph due to the abbreviations. I find it interesting from a writer’s perspective, though. You tend to give people’s names complete with middle names, prior married names and everything imaginable, but then with agencies or other entities you use alphabet soup like BEA, CVR, SCOTUS, POTUS, etc.
“I regret that you continue to be upset with the people you encounter while driving. I do not find them worthy of my energy.
“Your linked Wall Street Journal article requires login or registration to read. I gather someone has noticed the tentacles of the Department of Homeland Insecurity. It’s about time.
“After reading the article on the Redgraves, I remain uncertain as to the nature of the ‘curse.’ It appears to me that the women suffer from insecurity and lack of self-knowledge leading them to marry men who cannot respect them. Much of this could be avoided by honest sharing of facts and feelings by at least one of the parties.
“Kwak’s point was not about the size of government per se but about the growth that has been alleged in government and the accompanying claims that government has become more intrusive. Certainly Kwak has a viewpoint. No discussion of government is ever truly apolitical, and economics is part of government.”
My reply to the Blog:
My apologies . . . to you and everyone else. I usually define my acronyms. Unfortunately, this morning, too much of a rush. Again, my apologies; undefined, unfamiliar acronyms are a distraction to effective communications.
You have a good, healthy attitude toward bad drivers. I suppose my intolerance stems from my extended exposure to respectful and orderly drivers in England and Italy, and I must confess my paucity of enthusiasm for the commute.
Again, my apologies for the subscription link. The article was actually a series of graphic and links to various listings of private jet flights by John Travolta, Mark Cuban, Donald Trump, et cetera.
There were many familial dynamics reflected in the Adler article. Most of what was presented was far too superficial to be translated into relevant substance. My point for noting the article rested more on the collateral damage done by societal imposition of normality on those who do not fit that definition.
I understood the point of the Kwak article. He offered his opinion. I offered mine. As we trim the Federal budget, now is the time to realign the reach and focus of the Federal government. Let us withdraw the Federales from our private lives, re-focus their attention on those public activities that cause injury to or threaten other citizens, and helps those who truly need assistance. We have no choice but to dramatically contract Federal spending. We must reduce Defense . . . in the appropriate areas . . . and even expand other areas, like intelligence and special operations.
. . . with this follow-up comment:
“One bit of follow-up. We have an agreement on budgeting tax dollars for law enforcement when the laws in question are merely society's way of moral judgment. Now if each person who agrees with that statement were to write his or her senators and representative a letter concerning the waste of that money, maybe we could influence change.”
. . . any my follow-up reply:
Indeed! {NOTE: I shall add this note “To all” below.}
To all,
As noted in the previous contribution, each and every one of us needs to write our representative and both senators advocating for cost reduction by eliminating those Federal programs, agencies, bureaus, departments and laws that intrude upon the private lives and freedom of choice of citizens. Further, let us eliminate all those programs that do not benefit the population at large, e.g., oil company subsidies, bridges to nowhere, agriculture subsidies, defense appropriations not supported by SecDef, elimination of all earmarks, ad infinitum ad nauseum.
Please add whatever programs you think appropriate. Now is the time to contract the Federal government out of the private domain and refocus the government on the necessary regulation of public conduct for security, safety, the general welfare, and the public good.

From another contributor:
“A rare ‘chime in’ on only one of your several interesting subjects:
First, you offered ‘...It is all about spending the Treasury to gain our votes. In doing so, we have the two parties competing with each other to see who can spend more money . . . to gain more votes. ...’ I have always concurred with this indictment of both parties. As the Republican Party has in the past several decades competed for the championship, they earned the new name by which I have referred to them, as you know, for the past few years: The Repandercrats. The Democrats are still champs, but their imitators are not far behind, and the contest continues.
“Secondly, and not quite on point but worthy of your comment, the Repandercrats recently missed a golden opportunity to show wisdom, class, and patriotism when they resisted Obama's effort to cut big oil company subsidies. They should have bravely sacrificed their own subsidies from those corporations and joined with those brave Democrats who took a chance on losing theirs. Of course, I wondered if some of the Democrats secretly hated to risk injuring the goose that subsidizes them and were relieved at the success of the predictable Repandercrat knee jerk resistance to an idea whose time has come!”
My response:
Spot on! The only thing I could add is more examples of programs to cut . . . and a few things I would like to see strengthened. Your suggestion is certainly on my list as well.

Another contribution:
If Bernie Madoff can go to prison for essentially duping people out of millions, then I feel Harold Camping should be right behind him. This guy is a total jackass and 100% committed fraud. He raised over $80 Million and will pocket most of it. Yes, the civilians who bought into it are stupid and probably deserve to lose their money but if we're playing the 'pointing finger' game then he is guilty as can be. But as they say ‘Religion, the accepted insanity.’ As a society we will continue to make excuses in the name of religion. I am almost to the point of laughing at people who adhere to one form of religion AND chose to express their feelings. I think it's great that you can find something that gives you reason and hope to why we are here. Something to ‘make sense of it all.’ But the second you open your mouth and say ‘this is how it is’ then in my book you're an idiot. No one knows. Period.”
http://sanfrancisco.ibtimes.com/articles/151419/20110524/harold-camping-doomsday-open-forum-family-radio-money-video.htm
My reply:
Excellent observation and spot on opinion. Another way to look at religion-induced parochialism beyond your “open your mouth” point . . . when an individual’s evangelism attempts to impose his beliefs, values and morals on another person, then his actions have crossed the line from tolerance to threat. It is that moral projection that has gotten us off the path of the free society envisioned by the Founders & Framers.
Recognition and acknowledgment are key events to correct aberrant behavior. Hopefully, we are beginning to move along the process of correction. We have a long way to go.
I’m with you on Harold Camping, although to my knowledge, he was not selling a product or service; he simply accepted donations. Those who chose to voluntarily donate to his “ministry” have only themselves to blame. Caveat emptor.

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