Update no.511

Update from the Heartland

No.511

26.9.11 – 2.10.11

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

To all,

The follow-up news items:
-- The Federal government’s new fiscal year began on Saturday. Well, it appears our dysfunctional Congress has once again succumbed to political recalcitrance [481, 483, 487], resorting to continuing, short-term, operational appropriations. The Senate passed HR.2608 – Continuing Appropriations Act, 2012, retooled from the originally introduced Small Business Program Extension and Reform Act of 2011. As would be the case, the House took a recess, which was obviously more important than funding the government; so, by some unknown slight-of-hand procedure, a diminished House passed a 4-day extension, funding the government into next week, presumably to allow the House to consider the Senate version of HR.2608. We shall see.
-- The Obama administration petitioned the Supreme Court to hear the government’s appeal of the 11th Circuit’s ruling in Florida v. HHS [11CCA nos. 11–11021, 11–11067 (2011)] and the constitutionality of the individual mandate, rather than seek a review by the full 11th Circuit panel or take the time for other lower court cases to work their way through the process. The case being pushed to the Supremes is the appeal of the district court case – Florida v. HHS [USDC FL ND(PD) case: 3:10-cv-00091-RV/EMT (2011)] [477], which is the challenge by 26 states (alphabetically from Alabama to Wyoming) to the individual mandate invoked by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) [PL 111-148; 124 Stat. 119] [432]. I am only halfway through reading the decision by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals [my review next week, I hope].
Just an FYI: pp.21-23 of the 11th Circuit’s ruling offers the best summary of PPACA I have seen to date.
-- Yemen’s Defense Ministry announced and the White House confirmed that Anwar al-Awlaqi – a U.S. citizen by birth and self-anointed Muslim cleric affiliated with al-Qa’ida in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) and one of the most influential al-Qa’ida operatives wanted by the United States – has been killed in Yemen’s Marib province. Please recall, Anwar’s father, Nasser al-Awlaqi [a legal resident alien], filed suit against the President in an attempt to prevent the targeted killing of his son. Al-Aulaqi v. Obama [USDC DC case 1:10-cv-01469-JDB (2010)] [479]; he was unsuccessful in that effort, and now any appeal is moot, other than to press the principle involved.
-- On Thursday, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals issued its ruling on the government’s appeal of Judge Phillips’ injunction against enforcement of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” – Log Cabin Republicans v. United States [USDC CA(CD) case no. cv-04-08425-VAP (2010)] [456, 457, 461]. I have not had the time to read the 9th Circuit’s appeal decision – Log Cabin Republicans v. United States [9CCA no. 10-56634 (2011)]. I do not think the ruling is moot, given the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010 [PL 111-321; 124 Stat. 3515] that became effective two weeks ago [510], because the question of reinstatement of previously discharged service members remains unresolved and depends upon a finding of unconstitutionality. More to follow.

Comments and contributions from Update no.510:
Comment to the Blog:
“Your link to Jennifer Valentino-Devries’ story on “‘Stingray’ Phone Fuels Constitutional Clash” leads to an error message reading ‘Page Unavailable. The document you requested either no longer exists or is not currently available.’ Possibly someone has decided it’s a bad idea for Americans to know about this. In any case, I share your concern about Americans’ civil rights and your fear of another J. Edgar Hoover.
“I welcome the various subpoenas and other investigatory developments involving Wall Street. If Congress will not act to limit Wall Street corruption, perhaps the courts can at least “persuade” people to act according to such laws as still exist to regulate them.”
My reply to the Blog:
Nothing quite so sinister. The newspaper is a subscription service. They want money. I will attach the text to my eMail reply. My apologies.
The Judiciary cannot act without a bona fide complaint.
[FYI: If anyone else would like the text of the article, just ask.]
“‘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

I extracted one element of my contribution to an extended threat debate regarding societal response to the issue of homosexual rights.
The article that precipitated my reply:
“‘Gay’ culture war: It's nearly lost”
by Scott Lively
Posted: September 23, 2011; 3:53 pm Eastern
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=348101
“Dr. Scott Lively is an attorney, pastor and author of several books on the homosexual agenda, including "The Pink Swastika: Homosexuality in the Nazi Party" (co-authored by Jewish researcher Kevin E. Abrams).”
My response:
Wow! Talk about red meat for the carnivore!
Re: “threat to our society posed by the homosexual movement.” I wish someone would articulate the threat. Lively certainly did not do so.
As we have discussed more than a little, any citizen is entitled to their opinion. The difficulty for us as a society rests on the threshold of injurious. When does one person’s opinion become incitement to riot, to violence, to cause injury to another citizen?
I have not read Lively’s “Pink Swastika” book, and I am not likely to waste my time doing so. Let is suffice to say, his statement, “Were the Nazis anti-homosexual? Far from it!” is flat wrong and otherwise a gross distortion of history. Did homosexuals exist among the Nazi hierarchy? Yes, absolutely, as they do in every collection of human beings – the most notable being Stabschef Sturmabteilung Ernst Julius Röhm. Such facts cannot absolve the Nazis from the murder of thousands of homosexuals, simply for being homosexual. Lively’s intimation is no different from Ahmadinejad’s public pronouncements that the Holocaust never happened.
Lively’s concluding paragraph: “The homosexual agenda represents an existential threat to Christian civilization and we're in the final phase of the war, losing badly. It all hinges upon you, Christian reader. Either get into the ‘game’ in earnest, immediately, or wave goodbye.” Now, if I am an impressionable, unthinking, devout, Christian believer, what am I to take away from his statement? Is that an inciteful statement? Am I compelled to take up the sword and avenge the affront to all Christianity?
Lastly, thank you for sharing your note. I would most likely not have become aware of such vitriol.
[NOTE: Reprinting the exchange before and after was too voluminous and not practical in this forum.]

Another contribution:
[Re: the Reno air races accident.]
“I didn't realize that losing a trim tab could have such catastrophic results- but I guess at those speeds they would.
“Also, I have seen several videos of the crash-- he came down at a steep angle. There was no fireball, just disintegration. Any thoughts why no fireball--thank goodness.”
My reply:
The aircraft was not designed for those level-flight speeds. Control loads increase dramatically with speed due to a combination of forces involved. For the P-51D as I understand it, the left tab is fixed to bias the trim-speed band as desired by the pilot. Anecdotal information suggests Leeward had been repeatedly warned that the forces on the left, fixed tab at speed were too high, but apparently he disagreed. If true, a substantial control input would have occurred with the tab failed, and that transfer would have been near instantaneous. A similar, modified, P-51D racer failed in virtually the same manner in 1998 – that pilot was extraordinarily lucky.
Preliminary indications are the engine was putting out full power, so the speed at impact had to be very high. The disintegration at impact reflects massive momentum transfer.
Re: no fireball. First, he had minimal fuel on board for just the heat he was running (minimum weight for maximum thrust-to-weight ratio), so the quantity of fuel had to be quite low. Second, the impact forces probably vaporized the remaining fuel past the combustible threshold. Either that, or there was no ignition source, which I think would be rather doubtful given the energy involved.
. . . with a follow-up:
“Thanks, appreciate the analysis. The speed was very high. There is one video in which you can see the plane diving very quickly to the ground and disintegrating. Thanks for explaining why no fireball- I thought that the high energy at which the plane hit the ground caused what fuel there was to vaporize past the combustible threshold. I hadn't thought about a low amount of fuel.”
. . . my follow-up reply:
When I flew airshow routines, I would generally have sufficient fuel for the routine, times two, which is not much. For racers like that at the airfield, they could literally carry just enough fuel to make it to the finish line and use their excessive energy to glide home . . . although the other competitors would not look kindly on such a maneuver. He probably started with just enough fuel to start, taxi, take-off, stage, run the race, sequence to land and taxi; if he planned it perfectly, the engine would stop on its own.

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