29 August 2011

Update no.506

Update from the Heartland
No.506
22.8.11 – 28.8.11
To all,
The follow-up news items:
--The trauma of Air France Flight 447 (AF447) [391, 493] will continue for many years to come. Lines have been drawn in this accident, more so than in most other aircraft accidents – pilots versus designers, airlines versus manufacturers. We still do not know the root cause or contributing factors. However, the facts we do know so far point to a combination of natural and induced factors. We do not yet know how the automated system may have contributed. I do not like the posturing and finger-pointing that has clouded this investigation as we wait for the full investigation report with the flight data.

A friend and frequent contributor passed along a relevant column by retired columnist Charlie Reese that the Orlando Sentinel first published on 3.February.1984, updated and reprinted as Charlie’s last column upon his retirement on 29.July.2001, and updated again recently as reflected in the Iraq / Afghanistan sentence. I have not been successful with proper corroboration and confirmation, but sufficient collateral references suggest the text and citation are valid. I have written numerous times of the same sentiment. Charlie’s words are far more cogent and enlightening; thus, I take the unusual step of reprinting directly for your cogitative pleasure.
“545 vs. 300,000,000 People”
by Charlie Reese
“Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.
“Have you ever wondered, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?
“Have you ever wondered, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?
“You and I don't propose a federal budget. The President does.
“You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.
“You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does.
“You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does.
“You and I don't control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.
“One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one President, and nine Supreme Court justices equates to 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.
“I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank.
[Federal Reserve Act {[PL 63-043; 38 Stat. 251] [416]]
“I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a President to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.
“Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.
“What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits. The President can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.
“The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House now? He is the leader of the majority party. He and fellow House members, not the President, can approve any budget they want. If the President vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.
“It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million cannot replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts -- of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.
“If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair.
“If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red.
“If the Army & Marines are in Iraq and Afghanistan, it's because they want them in Iraq and Afghanistan ...
“If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way.
“There are no insoluble government problems.
“Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like ‘the economy,’ ‘inflation,’ or ‘politics’ that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.
“Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible.
“They, and they alone, have the power.
“They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses.
“Provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees...
“We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!”
No truer words were ever spoken. Spot on, Charlie. Now, when are we going to do something constructive to end this national nightmare? We cannot vote out the Supremes, but we can most certainly vote out everyone else, and hopefully find representatives who will more loyally act on behalf of We, the People. The obstacles are greater today; now, we must overcome corporations, massive law, accounting and special interest groups, and other huge concentrations of money, all buying influence and laws to protect their particular income stream from the Federal government. I think we can all recognize and acknowledge that if we were billionaires, or even just millionaires, or we were tax lawyers and accountants, or all the others who feed at the public teat, we would aggressively advocate for maintenance of the status quo – protect the income we receive by the largesse of Congress. Unfortunately, most of us are not so blessed; we loyally pay our taxes, so that Congress can give it away to the uber-rich. Eventually, we will see reality and take appropriate action.

News from the economic front:
-- Moody's downgraded Japan's sovereign debt rating from Aa2 to Aa3, due to its “large budget deficits and the build-up in Japanese government debt since the 2009 global recession.” Moody's joins the other major ratings companies Standard & Poor's and Fitch Ratings, both of which rate Japan's sovereign debt at AA- with a negative outlook.
-- Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said the U.S. economy is recovering and the nation’s long-term prospects remain strong, while short-term progress would remain slow and jerky. He said, “The growth fundamentals of the United States do not appear to have been permanently altered by the shocks of the past four years.” Bernanke also took this shot at the political convulsions we have endured for the last six months, “The country would be well-served by a better process for making fiscal decisions.” I must add a “well, duh!”

Comments and contributions from Update no.505:
Comment to the Blog:
I think your (and many people's) concept of "choice" is seriously over-simplified. I commend to you the new definition of addiction by the American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM) found at http://www.asam.org/. The ASAM study defines addiction (to whatever) as an organic brain disease. While I see the definition as lacking emphasis on the spiritual/emotional side of addiction, it is still very important to note the function of brain chemistry and structure on behavior. Indeed, study of the brain in general (neurology) has shown many fascinating connections to behavior and emotions. Please study at least some of this material before you blithely dismiss poverty as a "choice."
My reply to the Blog:
I am not sure I understand. Are you suggesting poverty is an addiction, and thus biological – a predilection, if you will? On the ASAM FAQ page, they say, “Addiction is about what happens in a person’s brain when they are exposed to rewarding substances or rewarding behaviors, and it is more about reward circuitry in the brain and related brain structures than it is about the external chemicals or behavior that ‘turn on’ that reward circuitry. We have recognized the role of memory, motivation and related circuitry in the manifestation and progression of this disease.” I am just not able to follow this path to the discussion of poverty. Please take another pass at making your point.
. . . round two:
“The point was only partially about poverty, although addiction does make people poor and keeps them there. The point was that addiction is one example of the over-simplified use of the concept of “choice,” an idea that is very appealing to a great many people who have never experienced whatever situation they are discussing. In most cases, they have not studied it in any depth either.
“To return to the poverty issue, saying that poor people often choose to remain in poverty, however one defines it, does not follow except in the foreign situations you refer to when you dispute the US definition of poverty. There are necessarily reasons of some sort that Americans do without adequate food and shelter, and dismissing them as the person's ‘choice’ does nothing to either explain or alleviate them.”
. . . my reply to round two:
While my poverty definition concern applies more to indigenous tribes and such, it also applies in this Grand Republic. Poverty is not addiction, in my opinion. As you note, addiction does contribute to poverty, and often as a consequence, to crime as a by-product of that poverty coupled the physiological desire to feed the addiction. I propose to break that cycle by allowing the addict to be an addict without poverty or crime, until he decides he has had enough and wants to change his life. The short, succinct version: I have no interest in helping those who do not want help or are not willing to contribute to the society that is helping them. You are, of course, correct; some who are stricken with genuine poverty did not choose to be so or seek to remain so afflicted. Our challenge is finding those who qualify for assistance AND are willing to return that generosity to the society that helps them. I simply urge us not to cast too broad a net without conditions. I did not intend or believe the causes of poverty were simple or easily dismissed. Like most things in life, the poor must decide to change their condition; if not, there is nothing we can do to help them. Further, I see no purpose served in subsidizing a middle class lifestyle for someone who is unwilling to work, or to learn. The bottom line is, we cannot help those who do not wish to be helped, and we should not help those who will not contribute to society.
. . . round three:
“We are in agreement at some levels. However, I object to the notion that "subsidizing a middle class lifestyle" is now or has ever been an objective or result of welfare programs in this country. I have been poor the majority of my life. As a result of that, I know many poor people and I have not seen anyone receive anything approaching a middle-class income or result from welfare programs except in a few short-lived incidents of gross and illegal manipulation of the system. Those people get turned in by other poor people.”
. . . my reply to round three:
Your objection is reasonable and appropriate if my comments were applied to all citizens who need / use public assistance. However, I was simply amplifying my suggestion for the need of filtration in qualification. Not all citizens availing themselves of public assistance are good people, who follow the rules. I simply advocate for respect . . . respect for the generosity of the State. Further, I did not say anything about income but rather lifestyle . . . Cadillacs, flat-screen TV’s, booze, neglecting their children, God knows what-all. If no welfare recipient abuses the system and all of them follow the rules, then there should never be a problem. I simply seek a proper quid pro quo for the public treasure. I do not nor do I have any intention to condemn or disparage good citizens who truly need help. Respect is bi-directional.

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

22 August 2011

Update no.505

Update from the Heartland
No.505
15.8.11 – 21.8.11
To all,
This is a very short Update. Between our return from Austin and my motorcycle safety course for the last four days, I barely kept up with my daily reading, neglected eMail, and had to push topics into next week. If anyone else ever considers getting a motorcycle, I strongly encourage and recommend the Motorcycle Safety Foundation’s Rider’s Edge safety course . . . well worth the money, time and effort. I feel like I’ve been rode hard and put away wet, but I am street legal, now.

A long-time friend and contributor sent this link to an incredible video of a machine that actually flies like a bird. This is a must see for anyone who enjoys flight.
http://www.flixxy.com/airplane-flies-like-a-bird.htm

Comments and contributions from Update no.504:
Comment to the Blog:
“I seriously disagree with your correspondent in Mississippi. The level of poverty that we now experience in the USA is neither a Constitutional issue nor a moral one. Poverty is an economic issue. The nation as a whole, as embodied by government, must consider the ramifications of allowing more and more people to sink into poverty. My advice is to consider other nations with high rates of poverty and small numbers of extremely wealthy people, such as Haiti. Most of them are neocolonial countries, subject to the economic whims of outsiders. That is the real issue about poverty. To provide one simple example, about 14,000 people currently die here in Ohio annually from lack of health care. Even if that does not bother you, who pays to bury them? What happens when that number rises?
Of course, I disagree with your correspondent about the class warfare issue as well. Conservatives have indeed supported the wealthy in opposition to the poor. In many cases, such as Warren Buffett, the wealthy themselves object to this. Most of the conservatives are middle class or poor people consistently voting against their own interests.
“I have no idea why Harry Reid would appoint John Kerry to the ‘Super Congress.’ He’s a weak spot if there ever was one.”
My reply to the Blog:
Re: poverty. Like most topics, we must first agree upon the definition. The commonly understood definition of poverty is something like, “the state or condition of having little or no money, goods, or means of support; condition of being poor,” which is common among “Western” nations. Americans tend to use money (income) as the measure of poverty, because that is the medium of our subsistence. However, I respectfully submit that such a metric is not only unreasonable; it is also unrealistic and seriously biases our view of poverty. I use the conjunction ‘AND’ in my conditions: “helping those who wish to be helped AND seek to better their circumstances.” If both conditions are not met, then I see no reason to expend public monies on those individuals. I acknowledge the individual citizen’s fundamental right to choose for either condition, and I shall respect their choices. Also, as I previously stated, I believe public monies should have strings attached – conditions that must be met and maintained; otherwise, no deal – sorry. Using income (or money) as the metric has gotten us so bloody crosswise with indigenous peoples around the world; it is wrong. So it is here. If a person chooses to kill themselves by overdosing on psychotropic substance(s) or chooses to live without the encumbrance of property or possessions, I say let them be, just as we should respect the decision of an individual to accept life-saving medical intervention. We must stop trying to induce people to live as we want them to live; it is not necessarily better. That said, I do accept your point; far too many people satisfy my constraints but still slip through the cracks.
Re: conservatives. I understand your argument. I am not sure I can agree. I know the public image of conservatives and even the Republican Party, but there are more than a few compassionate conservatives.
Re: Super-Committee. From my perspective, the selections by all four congressional leaders serve one purpose – perpetuation of the loggerhead. Neither party can tolerate “giving in,” so we select the faithful partisans, who will presumably not stray far from the party line. I do not see one of the selectees as helpful to finding a mutually acceptable solution to a very real problem. Further, I see the default position as a blunderbuss or perhaps even a scorched-earth solution. I want to be proven wrong.

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

16 August 2011

Update no.504

Update from the Heartland
No.504
8.8.11 – 14.8.11
To all,
This week we finally made the journey down to Austin to see our grandchildren – Judson James and Avalon Mar . . . oh yeah, and their parents. Shalee Lynn joined us. We played a great 18-holes of golf – putt-putt miniature golf -- Saturday morning and bowling on Sunday. Judson is growing so fast and Avalon is developing quite the personality. She has a magnificent grin and quite the little flirt. We had to drive through the night to get Shalee back to make her first day of school; she was so excited. Thank you very much Melissa and Tyson. We had a delightful visit. Sorry it took us so long to get down there. We are already looking forward to our next visit.

This Update edition was a day late. My apologies.

A frequent contributor shared his letter to the local newspaper editor:
Dear Editor:
Noel Polk offers a typically well-worded criticism of classic conservative concerns ("Poor, not rich, are suffering," August 5, possibly not his chosen title). The writer he criticized complained about a perceived prevailing mentality of the near-majority of voters who pay little or no income tax and expect those who have earned comparative wealth to involuntarily share more and more of it to fund more and more welfare. I want to point out that the liberal mentality illustrated by Mr. Polk's letter, believing that there is some inherent right to "entitlements" at someone else's expense, consistently ignores the wisdom of our constitution, which was never intended to guarantee individual comfort or equality of wealth. It was structured to enhance individual freedom (from government) and equality of legal opportunity for rich and poor. Human character and achievement, like human muscle, are not strengthened by lessening resistance or removal of obstacles or compassionate enabling to make burdens easy; instead, humans are weakened by such well-intentioned but shortsighted methods, creating habitual dependence and inadvertently denying development. The poor do suffer more than the rich, but enabled by liberal idealism in government like that apparently endorsed by Mr. Polk, human beings (rich and poor) like water will seek the easiest path and that is invariably downward. Our country and our citizenry are weakened by the government "lifelines" referred to by Mr. Polk, while the Christian virtue of giving to help the poor is overshadowed and discouraged by government redistribution of wealth. Yes, the poor suffer always, more than the rich, as the Bible clearly tells us, but the truly compassionate solution is not for government to perpetuate poverty by removing incentives for our poor to strive toward individual opportunity. Mr. Polk's accusation of class warfare waged by conservatives is unfounded, but counter accusations against kind liberals would be just as counter-productive. Instead, I say, to put the principle far too simply, let's try giving away fewer fish and try offering or possibly requiring more fishing lessons for those who want fish.
. . . my contribution
I have long favored helping those who wish to be helped AND seek to better their circumstances. I am not interested in helping those who do not satisfy both conditions. Further, I think it is only fair and reasonable if you take assistance, you must abide the rules; there must be a quid pro quo; we should never dispense unconstrained monies from the Treasury. Thus, I subscribe to your “fishing lessons” conclusion.
BTW, what is the name of your local newspaper?
. . . the reply:
“The Clarion Ledger of Jackson MS (or clarion liar, as some call it) is a Gannet paper, once owned by a wealthy and prominent Jackson family who are still big in publishing. It is by far the largest in the state but has significant competition in north MS from The Commercial Appeal out of Memphis and in south MS by the Times-Picayune out of New Orleans, and has much loyal opposition from smaller local papers statewide. Fewer than 10% of my letters to the editor get published, and I have an on-going feud with David Hampton, editor, over their infuriating policy (not published by any written disclaimer at all) of editing letters that they do publish without showing that they have left out words or phrases or sentences, thus unfairly crediting the named writer with something different from what was intended. They have gutted some of my letters and made typos in others, and my complaints are to no avail. Do you know of any other paper that does this without at least showing "..." or some other indication of omissions, and without at least confessing this in a statement on the same page as the published letters?
. . . and my last comment:
I think I have roughly the same yield and same editing problem with my local newspaper – Wichita Eagle (a McClatchy paper). They’ve edited to condense, but to date have not altered the essence of my opinions.

The so-called “Super Committee” has now been selected. The leaders of each party in each chamber picked three of their members for the deficit reduction committee created by the Budget Control Act of 2011 [PL 112-025] [503]. They are:
[Speaker of the House John Boehner of Ohio selected:]
** Representative Jeb Hensarling of Texas as co-chair,
** Representative David Lee “Dave” Camp of Michigan, and
** Representative Frederick Stephen “Fred” Upton also of Michigan.
[House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California selected:]
** Representative James Enos “Jim” Clyburn of South Carolina,
** Representative Christopher “Chris” Van Hollen, Jr. of Maryland, the Budget Committee ranking member; and
** Representative Xavier Becerra of California.
[Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada has selected:]
** Senator Patricia Lynn “Patty” Murray (née Johns) of Washington as co-chair,
** Senator Max Sieben Baucus of Montana, and
** Senator John Forbes Kerry of Massachusetts.
[Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky selected:]
** Senator Jon Llewellyn Kyl of Arizona,
** Senator Robert Jones "Rob" Portman of Ohio, and
** Senator Patrick Joseph "Pat" Toomey, Sr., of Pennsylvania.
The selectees for the Super Committee speak volumes regarding the congressional leadership’s expectations and portend more of the same, as we have just endured in the past half dozen months. We are not likely to witness bipartisan solutions to pressing Federal financial issues. I truly hope I am pleasantly surprised. By the law, they have until the end of this year to solve the problem. This is going to be a very interesting and entertaining few months.

News from the economic front:
-- The U.S. Federal Reserve indicated it plans to keep its benchmark short-term interest rate at or near zero until at least mid-2013, as it substantially lowered its forecast of the U.S. economic recovery. Seven board members voted in favor of the action, with three voting against the move.

Comments and contributions from Update no.503:
Comment to the Blog:
“I comment this time only to point out that your position on Obama is wrong by your own reasoning. You state, ‘Politics is NOT the domination of one ideology or another; it is entirely about seeking compromise among widely divergent position, desires and objective; it is working with people of all persuasions to achieve a mutually acceptable compromise solution.’ I agree. Krugman’s point and mine is that Obama has not successfully compromised but has capitulated at every turn. He has certainly not achieved ‘a mutually acceptable compromise solution’ on much of anything. What we see is domination by the Tea Party as funded by the Koch brothers, which cannot be supported as either majority rule or constitutional government. The budget fiasco is only the latest case in point. After all the posturing and shouting, Obama got nothing for the progressive views of those who elected him. I voted for him and I wish I’d stayed home.”
My response to the Blog:
Oh my! Negotiation and compromise require that all parties at the table are prepared to compromise. Like any relationship, when one party becomes recalcitrant, the whole process breaks down. What we witnessed was political extortion. I saw little evidence of negotiation or compromise. To blame the President for suffering the extortion seems rather capricious to me. His choice was accept the bill as presented or veto it. He chose the only reasonable path available to him . . . in this case, something was better than nothing. If he had vetoed S.365, the consequence on the market would have been even more drastic that it already is. No, in this one, I believe virtually 100% of the culpability lies with Congress . . . specifically with the House Republicans and precisely with the so-called Tea Party malcontents. Unlike the recalcitrants, I am not willing to shutdown the government and destroy the standing of the United States in the world marketplace; clearly, they were! That said, I agree in principle with the Tea Party recalcitrants that the USG must make serious spending cuts . . . closing tax loopholes and ending subsidies for the wealthy is just as necessary as reform of the entitlements or major cuts in the Pentagon (but not the military). To continue giving the wealthy and corporations access to paying no taxes simply pushes the burden onto the middle class, which already pays a higher fractional tax rate than the rich. Fair is fair; everyone should share the pain.

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

08 August 2011

Update no.503

Update from the Heartland
No.503
1.8.11 – 7.8.11
To all,
The follow-up news items:
-- As we all know, this has been a tumultuous week. A few hours after the Senate passed the long awaited legislation, President Obama signed into law the Budget Control Act of 2011 [PL 112-025; S.365; Senate: 74-26-0-0(0); House: 269-161-0-3(2)], which began the deficit / debt reduction process and increased the Federal debt limit from US$14.2T to as much as US$16.6T. Just as we witnessed the transformation of S.627 (AKA Faster FOIA Act of 2011) into a debt reduction bill and the Senate’s ultimate rejection [502], so too we see the diversion of S.365 that began as “a technical amendment to the Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002.” Regrettably, Speaker Boehner decided to publicly gloat, claiming he extracted from Congress and the President “98% of everything he wanted in the deal” – not particularly becoming of an honorable politician . . . but, then again, “honorable politician” seems to be at least a dichotomy, if not an oxymoron. Why does this episode appear to be public extortion? The only bright spot was the triumphant return of Representative Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona [473] to the House for the vote on the S.365 bill. Then, after all that doubt, confusion and emotional trauma, Standard & Poor’s downgraded the sovereign debt of the United States of America from AAA to AA+ (see below).
-- Leonard Pitts added his voice to the prospect of ending the so-called “war on drugs” [119 et al].
“NAACP’s paradigm shift on ending the Drug War”
by Leonard Pitts Jr.
Miami Herald
Posted on Saturday, 07.30.11
http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/07/30/2338455/naacps-paradigm-shift-on-ending.html
. . . or . . .
“Leonard Pitts: War on drugs has been a disaster”
by Leonard Pitts Jr.
Wichita Eagle
Posted on Monday, August 01, 2011
http://www.kansas.com/2011/08/01/1956748/leonard-pitts-war-on-drugs-has.html
Leonard concluded, “It is time to concede what has long been apparent: You cannot jail people out of wanting what they want. But you just might be able to treat and educate them to that purpose. Granted, that will require a paradigm shift some of us will find difficult to get our heads around.
“But if the NAACP can do it, you and I have no excuse.”
Amen, brother! I admit the urge to add a few words in a trailing prepositional phrase to Leonard’s: “. . . what they want . . . in a free society.”
-- Perhaps the best public account of the bin Ladin raid [490], yet:
“Getting Bin Laden – What happened that night in Abbottabad”
by Nicholas Schmidle
The New Yorker
Published: August 8, 2011
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/08/08/110808fa_fact_schmidle?printable=true
An interesting FYI: Nick’s father is Lieutenant General Robert E. Schmidle, Jr., USMC, currently: Deputy Commander for U.S. Cyber Command, Fort George G. Meade, Maryland.

“The Cult That Is Destroying America”
by Paul Krugman
New York Times
Published: July 26, 2011, 5:09 pm
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/26/the-cult-that-is-destroying-america/
I draw attention to this opinion, not because I find any affinity with the reasoning, but rather to illuminate the very logic that so divides this Grand Republic. Politics is NOT the domination of one ideology or another; it is entirely about seeking compromise among widely divergent position, desires and objective; it is working with people of all persuasions to achieve a mutually acceptable compromise solution. Paul Krugman is just as wrong as Rush Limbaugh.

I reached the point of my judicial reading list for an oldie but goodie – Ginsberg v. New York [390 U.S. 629 (1968); no. 47]. I would not note or offer an opinion on a 43-year-old, obscenity case, but after the reading, there is an important lesson for us. Sam Ginsberg and his wife owned and operated “Sam's Stationery and Luncheonette” in Bellmore, Long Island, New York. The Supremes of the day affirmed the authority of the State to prosecute Ginsberg for selling a 16-year-old boy two “girlie” magazines in October 1965, in violation of §484-h of the New York Penal Law. It was Associate Justice Abraham “Abe” Fortas who gave us a succinct, second, dissenting opinion that struck a chord with me. He was the only justice to note, “A 16-year-old boy was enlisted by his mother to go to the luncheonette and buy some ‘girlie’ magazines so that Ginsberg could be prosecuted.” He concluded, “But it does not follow that the State may convict a passive luncheonette operator of a crime because a 16-year-old boy maliciously and designedly picks up and pays for two girlie magazines which are presumably not obscene.” This case is an excellent example of what happens when we try to impose our values, our beliefs, our morals, on other citizens. A free society means all citizens must enjoy the Liberty to pursue their particular choices for Happiness, not just the chosen few.

News from the economic front:
-- The Commerce Department reported U.S. consumer spending decreased 0.2% in June, after rising an upwardly revised 0.1% in May -- the biggest drop since September 2009. Incomes rose 0.1% after increasing 0.2% in May.
-- The Institute for Supply Management's manufacturing index was at 50.9% down from 55.3% in June (the lowest level in two years), after an earlier report that the U.S. manufacturing sector barely expanded in July.
-- Japan Finance Minister Yoshihiko Noda announced the government’s intervention in currency markets to stem the speculator-driven rise of the yen against the dollar. The yen weakened suddenly, with the dollar jumping from ¥77.13 to ¥78.20 and the euro from ¥110.72 to ¥111.80. The Japanese government seeks to preserve modest growth in their economy, rebounding surprisingly well from the March earthquake and tsunami.
-- The Labor Department reported nonfarm payrolls rose by 117,000, and revised the previous two months up by a total of 56,000 – stronger than expected. Private-sector employers added 154,000 jobs in July, up from 80,000 in June. Government employment continued to fall, shedding 37,000 jobs. The unemployment rate declined from 9.2% to 9.1% last month.
-- After the markets closed on Friday, Standard & Poor's took the unprecedented action of downgrading the U.S. government's sovereign credit rating one notch from AAA to AA+ -- an action that has never happened to the United States before, and undoubtedly will send deep reverberations through the global financial markets and potentially undermine world economic growth. The other two ratings agencies, Moody’s and Fitch, both have said that they have no immediate plan to downgrade the country’s credit rating, which should mitigate the S&P action somewhat. This appears to be far more a political statement rather than a financial judgment. Just an FYI: other countries that still retain their AAA are: Australia, Austria, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Netherlands, Norway, Singapore, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom. As a side note, other countries that have a AAA rating but are small and dependent on other states are: Guernsey, Isle of Man, Liechtenstein, and Luxembourg. Countries with an AA+ rating include New Zealand and Belgium. Countries like Bermuda, Spain and Qatar have an AA rating, one notch lower than the United States.

Comments and contributions from Update no.502:
Comment to the Blog:
“I have found it easier to face commuting by using two methods. (A) I am currently a college student. Most of my courses are online; problem solved. (B) Whenever I drive, I drive only the vehicle of which I am in charge. I remember that others’ driving is not my problem and I allow the amount of time required to arrive at my destination legally and safely. I carry something to read in case I encounter no dimwits, unexpected construction zones, or other unplanned delays, but I get little reading done that way. The specific delays I cannot predict; that I will have delays I can expect.
“Your new Harley may very well bring you a great deal of joy, just not while commuting. If your last 2-wheeler was a 350 and was long ago, please begin with a great deal of caution. I don’t know the motor and drive line of that bike, but Harleys of which I’m aware little resemble a Honda 350.
“I assume that the use of “disperse” rather than ‘disburse’ is intended ironically. The debt limit “debate” (grandstanding) is an example of politics, not of economics. The Congress feels the pressure every so often to show fiscal responsibility, of which it collectively knows nothing. The result of that is nonsense like the debt ‘ceiling.’ I follow a blog written by economists, the leader of which is Simon Johnston, the former chief economist of the International Monetary Fund. Here is my explanation of one thing I’ve learned. That the USA has more debt than income is roughly equivalent to a household that has $50,000 in income and $150,000 in a mortgage and other debt. Both parties pay interest on their debt. So what? I’d rather the banker for the USA’s debt was not China, but that’s not my decision.
“Good luck rooting out hypocrisy in Congress. There’s plenty and that will continue for the foreseeable future. We elect human beings to handle vast amounts of money. Their desire to be re-elected assures that some of the money flows to districts, states, and campaign contributors, deserving or not.
“I believe that Warren Buffet knows more about his tax situation than that reporter. Buffet knows a great deal about money in general and seems to be a responsible citizen, one of the few in his industry. Perhaps we should listen to him.
“My point about ‘professional’ soldiers still holds, I think. The people who have fought the US to a standstill in Iraq, Afghanistan, et al are minimally trained and not organized in the way or to the level of any professional military. Something fundamental has changed.”
My reply to the Blog:
If telecommuting was available to me, I would take it in a heartbeat. You have a good, stable attitude toward driving. My downfall is I have driven in other countries; while there are obvious similarities, there are significant differences that tend to illuminate the deficiencies of discourteous American drivers.
I am keenly aware there is a huge difference between a 1971 Honda 350 Scrambler (350 cc) and a 2011 Harley Road King with its 1700 cc engine and doubled weight. Rest assured, my hero days are long over, and I intend to be a respectfully cautious rider.
Re: debt limit. Yes, spot on!
Re: hypocrisy in Congress. Again, spot on!
Re: Warren Buffet. My point, precisely!
Re: professional soldiers. I thought your comment was directed at U.S. soldiers. Taliban, al-Qa’ida, et al, yes indeedie; the best we could call them is “irregulars” as you said. I do not believe the Taliban has fought us to a standstill. There is ebb & flow in all warfare. It is too early to write off the United States and its allies in the Battle for Afghanistan.

Another contribution:
“I still can recall our days together on Okinawa when you convinced me to buy a motorcycle. Our whole set of officers in D 1/4 ended up owning motorcycles.
“I took mine back to Camp Lejeune with me, but eventually sold it. As CO of K 3/6, I was making too many calls on the orthopedic ward at the Navy Hospital to visit my Marines recovering from motorcycle accidents. No matter how good a rider you are, your are constantly vulnerable to those idiot drivers you now complain about. I think steel frames, air bags and seat/shoulder belts are much safer.
“I wish you luck and hope you enjoy many years of safe riding on your cycle!”
My response:
Ah yes, that is where it all began. I shipped mine back as well. I rode through Flight School and my first squadron (HMA-169). I sold it before heading to Test Pilot School when our first child was born. I recognize and acknowledge the risks. I was taught early and reinforced repeatedly to assume every driver on the road is trying to kill you; it kept me safe during my riding years, and expect it will continue to keep me safe.

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

01 August 2011

Update no.502

Update from the Heartland
No.502
25.7.11 – 31.7.11
To all,
I know I am more than a few pence short of the full quid. I acknowledge that fact up front. It only took me 40 years to figure out a life-truth. Y’all have endured my periodic rants about discourteous American drivers. I finally figured out how to keep what is left of my feeble pea-brain safe from the stress of tolerating the oblivion of some drivers who apparently believe the entire highway belongs to them personally, and there is no need or reason for order, discipline, respect or reason. Here is my epiphany. If I drive 20mph below the speed limit in the far right lane (or left for our British cousins), then I will never have a slower driver block the road. I will just stay in the lorry lane, and enjoy that I am avoiding the frustration of disrespectful drivers. I wish those drivers, who are the object of my scorn, could learn to drive properly in England, Italy, Japan, Germany, and so many other countries. Alas, I would not wish them on any decent citizens of other friendly nations, who know how to drive with respect for others on the road.

Sensing my frustration with the daily commute, Jeanne took charge (not that she ever lost it), gathered me up, and off to the local Harley-Davidson dealership we went. We are now the proud owners of a 2011 Silver Road King motorcycle. I gave up my Honda 350 Scrambler when the kids were born. They are grown. My Mom has passed. Jeanne knew it was time. So, there you have it – my mid-life crisis realized.

Monday night, President Obama and Speaker Boehner took to the airways to pitch their case in the continuing debacle over the U.S. debt. They both played to their political supporters, but I must say, of the two messages and positions, I believe the President more. He said, “[The American people are] fed up with a town where compromise has become a dirty word.” Spot on, Mr. President! Boehner’s notion of a small six-month extension, pushing this very same debate into an election year, will NOT encourage compromise; as such, I cannot support the Boehner approach. The last few months of this debate have occurred in the precise time of the fiscal year that Congress should be passing appropriations for governmental operations, including for an army in the field engaged in harm’s way. Economic growth depends directly upon confidence. When that confidence is shaken for whatever reason (war, disaster, instability, et cetera), markets become progressively more conservative and wait-n-see-ish. Congress is not playing with matches; they are playing with thermonuclear bonfires.
The debt limit of the United States is a self-imposed, artificial boundary. Congress created the debt limit with passage of the Second Liberty Bond Act of 1917 [40 Stat. 288; 31 USC 3101] that imposed a not-to-exceed limit of US$7.539B on Federal debt. I have not taken the time to count how many times Congress has raised the debt limit since 1917; let it suffice to say . . . a lot. The U.S. Constitution Article I, Section 8 (1788) authorizes Congress to raise revenues and allocate funds. In essence, Congress passed a law to limit itself . . . except Congress just moves the limit so it can disperse more money. . [NOTE: I used the word ‘disperse’ rather than the normal ‘disburse’ intentionally.] The 14th Amendment, Section 4 (1868) acknowledges and reinforces the sovereign debt of this Grand Republic. No President has had a “blank check” as some of the political drivel has claimed. While the President has some discretion in spending money, just as he does with enforcement of other laws, it is Congress that authorizes expenditures – telling the Executive on what and how much to spend the public treasury. So, all the mindless, parochial, political yammering, trying to point the accusatory finger at President Obama, serves only one purpose – political division and adherence to political ideology. This is Congress’s mess lock, stock & barrel.
The so-called Boehner Plan barely passed the House of Representatives Friday afternoon. Actually, the bill used for that purpose was S.627, titled: Faster FOIA Act of 2011. The text presented by the Library of Congress addresses the original purpose, rather than whatever the new purpose happens to be; I have no idea what the “Boehner Plan” entails, other than what the Press has reflected. The House passed S.627: 218-208-0-5(4). Less than two hours later, the Senate passed a motion to table the House S.627 bill: 59-41-0-0(0). Congress has been working through the weekend. Late Sunday, the President and the Press suggested a 23rd hour deal may have been struck. We shall see if they pass something the President can sign by Tuesday.
Some additional thoughts. The most we can accuse at least the previous three presidents of is not having the cohones to veto the constant flood of obscene, earmark-laden, spending bills coming from Congress; and frankly, the worst of the three has been George W. Bush. So, let’s call a spade a spade. For Republicans to stand on some faux-sanctimonious ground of fiscal responsibility is so far down the hypocritical scale, it is beyond the boundaries of the solar system. On one hand, I laud the Tea Party freshmen for their resolve and courage to stand up to the mark and be counted as trying to get our governmental, fiscal house in order. However, holding the government hostage, after a serious recession, shaking the entire world financial system, threatening to send the nation into a second dip recession or even a major depression is NOT the way to accomplish the objective. I want to see if any of these Tea Party guys who seek to bring down the government will avail themselves of earmarks to disperse their particular largesse. I do not have evidence, yet, but I strongly suspect we shall see more of the hypocrisy that contaminates our political system. After doing all this damage and adding whatever lies ahead, if one of those Tea Party guys tries to attach just one, little, tiny, teeny-weeny earmark, he should be nailed to a cross, upside-down, as Peter was in 67AD and ignominiously erected on the lawn of the Capitol Building to remind everyone that hypocrisy will not be tolerated.

I sent an eMail message to Congress and our local newspaper:
Sent to U.S. Senators Roberts & Moran, and U.S. Representative Pompeo:
You are a representative of We, the People, in Congress. By the Constitution, Congress determines what, when and how to spend the public treasury. Congress must stand up to reality. The continuing impasse regarding the Federal debt has already caused a substantial reduction of confidence in this Grand Republic. We strongly urge you to find a mutually acceptable, compromise solution, NOW! Pushing this debate into an election year will not make the process of compromise and moderation easier. You must abandon the rigid political ideology that places political party over the general welfare of We, the People. This is NOT a game. We do not want to find out if Lord Woodhouselee was prophetic.
Sent to Congress and the Wichita Eagle, Thursday, 28.July.2011.

The Bureau d’Enquêtes et d’Analyses pour la sécurité de l’aviation civile (BEA) issued its second interim report on the Air France Flight 447 (AF447) crash.
It appears the investigation is narrowing down to the root cause. The BEA notes "likely" ice crystal impaction compromising all three pitot tubes, yet they do not acknowledge that as the precipitating event, or even mention the phenomenon and susceptibility in their recommendations. They hit the pilots' actions rather strongly. It was like the pilots got mentally locked into a presumed "solution" and held it to impact. They apparently aggravated the stall and entered a deep stall, which in turn was probably not recoverable. However, they made no mention of "out of the box" efforts to extricate themselves. Before we go too far down that road on words alone, I would really like to see the FDR traces and a full-up animation to correlate the instrumentation, controls, and communications. Hopefully, they will release that processed data soon. It was good to see their recommendation that direct Angle of Attack (AOA) indications should be available to the crew; that one piece of data might have saved their lives (if they knew how to use it).

“Warren Buffett Is Wrong On Taxes – Millionaires and billionaires pay a higher share of their income in taxes than the middle class”
by Stephen Moore
OPINION
Wall Street Journal
Published: July 28, 2011
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903999904576466541882356616.html?mod=djemEditorialPage_h
Holy jumpin’ jehosafats, Batman! These are the games we are destined to play . . . very supportive of the Republican mantra, “No new taxes.” It is intriguing to see how Moore rationalizes his presumption. But, oh what the heck, he has impressive numbers, so he must be correct, and Warren Buffet must be delusional.

News from the economic front:
-- Moody's Investors Service reduced Greece's foreign- and local-currency bond ratings from Caa1 to Ca – three notches further into junk bond status – citing the likelihood that private creditors will suffer “substantial” losses on their holdings of government debt. Moody's said that even with the European Union rescue plan, the Greek government was “virtually 100%” likely to default on its bonds.
-- Moody's also announced with was reviewing Spain's Aa2 ratings for possible downgrade, citing the increased vulnerability of the government's finances to market stress, and greater risk to bondholders due to the precedent set by euro-zone action to support Greece. Moody’s did give the Spanish government positive recognition for its efforts to meet near-term fiscal consolidation targets, but highlighted the challenges posed by weak economic growth and fiscal slippage within parts of its regional and local-government sectors.
-- The U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) rose at an annualized seasonally adjusted rate of 1.3% in the second-quarter against an expected GDP increase of 1.8%. Consumer spending edged up by an annualized rate of only 0.1%, the weakest it has been in two years. The first-quarter growth was revised down sharply from the earlier estimate of a 1.9% to a 0.4% gain.

Comments and contributions from Update no.501:
Comment from the Blog:
“In regard to polygamous families (they do not claim to be ‘married’ in a legal sense), I have watched that show. As far as I know, no party claims any form of abuse or coercion in that particular family. That leaves only the likes of Justice Scalia to harass and annoy the people in this case, Kody Brown and his large family. Justice Scalia’s extensive list of his fears concerns me less than his precedent for “validation of laws based on moral choices.” If Justice Scalia disapproves of ‘bigamy, same-sex marriage . . .’ etc., he should avoid participating in those activities. If Kody Brown’s wives knowingly agree to plural marriage and remain in that marriage voluntarily, that’s not Scalia’s or any moral arbiter's business. I have watched at least a season of their reality TV show; they and their children appear to be about as happy, unhappy, confused, certain, loving, indifferent and all the rest as more ordinary families I know. While I am not a polygamist by nature, other forms of “alternative” relationships might appeal to me. I will remember not to ask Justice Scalia to participate in them.
“In re: Supreme Court. Some of the justices have other issues at present. A CNN story at http://articles.cnn.com/2011-01-20/politics/scotus.conflict.allegation_1_justice-department-scalia-political-strategy?_s=PM:POLITICS details Common Cause allegations against Justices Thomas and Scalia concerning their involvement with the Koch brothers, who operate an energy company based in Wichita and who are deeply involved in political activities. Thomas has other allegations against him as well.
“We have argued the torture/interrogation issue at enough length, but I want to point out that your statement that “wars need to be fought by professional warriors” runs counter to history. Beginning in 1783, when the best professional military of its time was defeated by those amateur American colonists, professionalism in the military has declined. A likely final blow has been dealt by Afghanistan, where a truly unprofessional collection of true believers and others has defeated the mighty USSR and brought the USA to a lengthy stalemate, thus humbling what had been the two superpowers. “Irregulars” might very well be the wave of the future.
“I will answer your rhetorical question. ‘I ask, have we traded the oppression of the ‘divine right of kings’ as royal birthright, for the tyranny of the royalty of money?’ Yep. The only power left to the People is the only power that matters—the power of the ballot box. In order to use that, we must overcome the power of money to buy media and other influence.
“Finally, to respond to one of your responses, our “social and political hypocrisies” mark the places where our society is dysfunctional.”
My reply to the Blog:
Re: polygamy. Well said! I think that should be the mantra against most, if not all, of the morality laws. “If you don’t like something, don’t do it.” That said, I must add concomitantly that some regulation is required in place of any of the morality laws. For example, I can accept non-traditional marriage arrangements defined by the individuals involved, as long as all participants freely choose the arrangement and do not pass communicable diseases unknowingly (full disclosure). The same would be true for the other “sins”: prostitution, gambling, consumption of intoxicants, et al. Scalia & Thomas casually wave away the freedom of choice for We, the People; I’m obviously not a supporter of their political beliefs.
Re: Kody Brown. We’ve watched the program as well. While I generally laud their conduct and dedication to family, his paternalism (founded in his religious beliefs) is just as wrong as racism, sexism, homophobia, et cetera. My bottom line: we can object or even be offended by the choices of others, but that does not give us the right to impose our beliefs and values on others.
Re: Scalia / Thomas ethics. We must remain vigilant.
Re: military. By professional, I mean trained, not simply lifers. We had trained soldiers in 1776, as we have had them in every war since. My point was, we do not watch over the shoulder and critique the doctor, or the artist, or the lawyer for that matter. Average citizens should not be looking over the soldier’s shoulder either. War is a nasty, disgusting business, best left to those trained to perform those duties.
Re: money royalty. You are of course quite correct, but that does not diminish my disdain for those who consider themselves better than us common folk.
Re: dysfunctional society. Probably so, but I suspect we have endured the phenomenon since the founding of this Grand Republic.
. . . a follow-up comment:
“The only thing I can add is that dysfunctional societies probably go back before written history; hypocrisy is, however, a marker we could use to locate the problems.”
. . . and my follow-up reply:
Well said and spot on!

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