Update no.510

Update from the Heartland

No.510

19.9.11 – 25.9.11

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

To all,

This is the week that was. Two families and sets of friends gathered to celebrate the marriage of our youngest son, Taylor Warden Parlier, to his long-time girlfriend, Sherri Suzanne Stuke, and our newest grandson, Jack Dillon Stuke. We are so proud of them. Sherri and Jack have been part of our family for four years. I think we have all known this day was inevitable. Taylor took his time to arrive at the same conclusion. They are off on a nice cruise of the Bahamas next week. Jeanne and I keep looking at each other and saying, “Our youngest child is a husband; he’s married!” Do we sound like really proud parents?

The follow-up news items:
-- The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) issued its preliminary report on the “Galloping Ghost” accident [509] at this year’s Reno Air Races, last week. The investigators acknowledged that several memory chips have been recovered from the debris field and that some flight data had been telemetered to the ground crew during the flight, prior to the crash. It will take some time to analyze those data. The unofficial but knowledgeable supposition has focused on the left (fixed) elevator trim tab and mechanical failure as the root cause of the tragic accident. In 1998, a similar event occurred to another modified P-51D racer named “Voodoo.” In the earlier event, the left trim tab broke and departed the aircraft, causing an abrupt 10+ g pitch up. The pilot suffered G-induced Lost Of Consciousness (G-LOC) and fortunately regained control as the aircraft was climbing through 9,000 feet. “Galloping Ghost” appears to have suffered the same fate, however the aircraft did not continue its climb but rather rolled inverted and dove for the ground at high speed. I believe the NTSB will ultimately sort this out. My worry, beyond the most unfortunate loss of life [11 dead so far, 64 injured, eight remain hospitalized], remains the Press clamoring for an end to such events.

Former Afghan President (deposed by the Taliban in 1996) and leader of Afghanistan’s High Peace Council Burhanuddin Rabbani was assassinated in his Kabul home by a man who concealed a bomb imbedded in his headdress and apparently embraced Rabbini, then detonated the device. The assassin was reportedly a high-level, Taliban emissary who arrived for a scheduled, peace negotiation meeting, and was not subjected to normal security procedures out of respect for his position. Strangely, some Muslims wonder why we see the radicals and Islamo-fascists as uncivilized.

In the shadow of the Rabbani assassination (above) and recent attacks in Kabul, the administration apparently reached its limit. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen publicly accused the Pakistani military’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency of providing planning and operational support for the Pakistan-based al-Haqqani network, which in turn sponsored the Taliban operatives who died in the recent terrorist attacks. This is a huge escalation in tension between Pakistan and the United States. ISI culpability has been whispered for decades but largely tolerated in view of the larger picture. While I do not think direct combat operations against Pakistan are pending, I suspect this diplomatic move is part of setting the stage for more unilateral action to reduce the safe-haven of the Pakistani Tribal Region, relative to continuing combat operations in Afghanistan.

It appears we are back in it again. The two chambers of Congress have started passing and rejecting government funding, continuing resolutions to buy some time for them to make more political statements [481, 483, 487]. This process . . . although I am reticent to call it an actual process, as it is more like chaos . . . anyway, this process is really getting old, like watching adolescents bickering on the playground over who “owns” the ball.

“‘Stingray’ Phone Tracker Fuels Constitutional Clash”
by Jennifer Valentino-Devries
Wall Street Journal
Posted: September 22, 2011
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904194604576583112723197574.html - ixzz1Yog5FuUB
We can read such news articles with a sense of relief. Thank goodness the State had access to that technology to catch and arrest a cyber-criminal and cyber-saboteur. Yet, I see it with considerable dread. We read this news as say they collared the bastard. A very fine line exists between using the technology against criminals, and using it against political dissent, the outspoken antagonists, or those whose morals we disapprove of in our society. No, I am definitely not comfortable with the prospect of the State probing even deeper into our fundamental right to privacy. We have but to remember the “private files” maintained by then FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover for political purposes, to place this news article in proper perspective. Hoover used FBI manpower to gather potentially harmful information on citizens he deemed adversarial, unworthy, or just because he did not like them. The thought of an agent of the State like Hoover having this class of technology should be an exceptionally chilly prospect for every citizen, even though most of us are just simple, law-abiding, peaceful individuals.

After reading the above article and writing the associated paragraph, I read this article:
“Wyden ties Section 215 to ‘secret law,’ taking swing at Justice Dept. transparency”
by Ellen Nakashima,
Washington Post
Published: September 23, 2011
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/wyden-takes-swing-at-justice-departments-transparency-on-intel-collection/2011/09/21/gIQAJJFLrK_story.html?wpisrc=nl_headlines
Senator Ronald Lee “Ron” Wyden of Oregon illuminated not so much the law but rather the interpreted execution of Section 215 – Access to records and other items under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act [115 Stat. 287] within Title II – Enhanced Surveillance Procedures, USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 [PL 107-056; 115 Stat. 272]. Unfortunately, we are far more interested in what was not said. However, the action by a U.S. senator reflects the mounting concern regarding the abridgment of our most precious rights and freedoms.

News from the economic front:
-- In an interesting twist, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued subpoenas to hedge funds, specialized trading shops and other firms as they probe possible insider trading before Standard & Poor's downgraded the U.S. government's long-term credit rating last month [503].
-- The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) of the Federal Reserve Board cited “serious downside risks” to the economy, as they announced a shift of US$400B from short-term bonds to longer-term holdings. The move is intended to bolster a foundering economy by reducing longer-term interest rates, such as for home mortgages.

L’Affaire Madoff [365]:
-- The SEC Inspector General referred his investigation of former SEC General Counsel David M. Becker to the Justice Department for possible prosecution. Becker was involved in recommendations as to how Bernie Madoff’s victims would be compensated, despite his family’s US$2M inheritance from a Madoff account. The hits just keep coming.

Comments and contributions from Update no.509:
Comment to the Blog:
“I wish you well finding a non-economic measure of poverty. Any way you measure it, more of us are there. After thirty years of lowering taxes and worshiping market forces, the economy continues failing. What will it take to awaken Congress?
“I find the figure of 49.9 million uninsured particularly interesting. The implications of this include (a) the health care system has failed very many Americans, (b) financial problems in health care are very likely dragging down the entire economy, and (c) neither Obama’s plan nor anyone else’s is having an actual positive result. Of course, most of Obama’s plan is scheduled for 2014, by which time it will be thoroughly dismantled.
“I hope you will continue investigating the fate of the unaccounted-for nuclear materials. Until someone can find this stuff, it’s very much worth worrying about.
“The future of our civil rights continues unclear and scary. Please keep following these issues.”
My reply to the Blog:
If poverty statistics are just numbers to tickle our curiosity or feed our social intercourse, then I suppose my concern is irrelevant. However, if we intend doing something with the numbers, then we must be more differentiating. I acknowledge up front that there are citizens who have a bona fide need and want help. There are others who do not. I add the additional qualification of contributing to their community. I really struggle with freeloaders who just expect the State to provide for them. We have discussed this before.
I understand the popular notion regarding American health care, but frankly, I am not seeing evidence. I know the PPACA is intended to help all Americans with health care; I am not sure it will perform as intended. Likewise, the status quo ante is not acceptable.
Re: unaccounted for nuclear material. Agreed. I continue to be surprised by how little Press play the GAO report has attracted.
Rest assured. I continue to watch with great interest. Our Liberty is too bloody important.
. . . round two:
“You'll have to give me a more concrete explanation of how to ‘be more differentiating’ before we can have a real discussion of poverty measurement. If you're just trying to sort out the "deserving poor," that's already been tried extensively. It turned out to be one more excuse for hurting all poor people. In any case, we have yet to learn how to read minds. What stuns me about this whole discussion (not just with you) is the assumption that any person not mentally ill would choose to live as I live rather than work. That's just simply silly.
“I cannot recall what the initials PPACA mean, but the context suggests Obamacare. Forget Obamacare; it will be dismantled. That was a political gesture. You need to explain why you cannot see a problem about healthcare when 49.9 million of us have no access to any healthcare and when the USA, despite spending the most in the world on that is consistently ranked 39th or so in studies of world healthcare.”
. . . my reply to round two:
I do not seek to or advocate for “reading minds.” I think actions are quite adequate for communicating intent. All citizens with income below the established threshold are not the same. Poverty threshold income in New York City is not the same as Columbus, Ohio, or Winfield, Kansas. How can a farmer who raises his food, pumps his water with wind, and needs no money for goods & services be poverty-stricken? Surely you will acknowledge there are people who are content having the government take care of them in perpetuity. Like our long discussion about addicts and minimizing collateral damage, a similar argument exists for recognizing and separating the various categories of poor, and treating them accordingly. I am not saying that we are now or ever have treated the poor appropriately. Just as I have tried to find a way to deal with habitual, intoxicating, substance users, so to I seek to find a way to deal with habitual welfare consumers who have shown no interest in supporting themselves or contributing to their community. We need to see appropriate stratification so that we can respond appropriately.
PPACA = Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) [PL 111-148; 124 Stat. 119] [432]; I refuse to call it Obamacare. It may well be dismantled by the courts, but we are a long way from that point. I believe it was more than a political gesture; I think it was a sincere, bona fide attempt to address the issue of uninsured, under-insured citizens. PPACA is far from perfect, but it was a real attempt. I have not seen any proposal to do better. The status quo ante is not acceptable. We were on a dead end path. At least the Government tried to find a better path. If the PPACA path is not the correct path, then let’s change it, improve it, but dismantling it to return to the status quo ante is just flat wrong and otherwise not acceptable.
Thank you for your continuing contributions to the public debate.
. . . round three:
“Some of the functional distinctions you suggest already exist. For example, some states supplement the amounts that SSI pays as a minimum. It's a shame that this depends on state resources rather than true need, but that's the system we have and it probably won't change soon.
“No, in fact I do not acknowledge that anyone who can realistically be called sane is ‘content having the government take care of them in perpetuity,’ if the level of care is what I and others I know experience. There are many reasons that most do not find a way out of poverty, but contentment is not one of them. If nothing else, most poor people live in places where there lives are in danger, and they know it. I suggest you study actual poor people (not Reagan's imaginary ones) in much more detail before you make such a statement.
“I didn't say that PPACA was a bad idea; I said it would be dismantled before most of the provisions take effect. In the absence of a dramatic change in our political climate, I stand by that statement.”
. . . my reply to round three:
I concede to your experience, although I suspect you are being a little too generous. We shall not argue that point.
I hope you are wrong re: PPACA. We shall watch the courts. Perhaps Congress can improve the law if the court seeks to dismantle it.
. . . round four:
“I don't think the courts will dismantle PPACA. That's a job for the Congress we have now, aided and abetted by the insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, and everyone else who makes money on the current system.”
. . . my reply to round four:
Again, I hope you are wrong on PPACA, but I do understand your pessimism given our contemporary political climate in Washington. DC.

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