31 December 2012

Update no.576


Update from the Heartland
No.576
24.12.12 – 30.12.12
Blog version:  http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
Here is the last Update of 2012, and so begins the New Year.  Happy New Year to one and all.

The follow-up news items:
-- As indicated last week [575], I completed my review of the State Department’s Accountability Review Board (ARB) unclassified summary report on the Benghazi attack [561] that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods, and Glenn Doherty.  The appointed ARB members were:
·      Ambassador Thomas Reeve “Tom” Pickering (Ret.) – ARB Chairman – former ambassador to the United Nations
·      Admiral Michael Glenn “Mike” Mullen, USN (Ret.) [USNA 1968] – ARB Vice Chairman – former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
·      Catherine Ann Bertini – former Executive Director of the World Food Program, United Nations, and currently Professor of Public Administration and International Affairs, Syracuse University
·      Richard J. Shinnick – former Director, Overseas Building Operations, State Department, and Vice Chairman of the Board, American Foreign Service Protective Association
·      Hugh Turner (appointed by Director, National Intelligence) – former CIA operations officer
The unclassified report gives us few, new details of the attack, and to be frank, offers us little more than vanilla insight.  The publicly offered report is untitled, undated and not signed by any member of the ARB, so it can hardly be labeled definitive.  The ARB did note that the FBI criminal investigation continues.  They made no attempt at attribution for the perpetrators of the attack, presumably leaving that action to the FBI, Congress or others.  The ARB reported communications from Benghazi were good without specifying the content or quality of the messages.  Significantly, the ARB noted, “[Chris Stevens’] status as the leading U.S. government advocate on Libya policy, and his expertise on Benghazi in particular, caused Washington to give unusual deference to his judgments.”  As a result, security provisions, planning and procedures were woefully inadequate and well short of established State Department standards for ambassadorial visit / occupancy.  Some assets had been allocated and delivered, but not yet installed due to conflicting priorities with scares technical resources.  As noted in the Press, attention focused on mid-level management in Washington; several senior individuals resigned or were reassigned – scapegoats, if I may say so.
            Taking the report as a whole, I am struck more by what is not said.  According to the ARB summary report, the Regional Security Officer (RSO) in the Tactical Operations Center (TOC) of the Special Mission Compound Benghazi (SMC) was communicating their status and the progress of the attack to the Annex Benghazi, Embassy Tripoli and Washington.  Yet, there are critical details missing from the unclassified report, e.g., the exact time Washington received communications regarding the attack and the content of those communications; inter-agency communications, especially with the Defense Department and specifically with Africa Command (AFRICOM), were distinctly missing.  There is little doubt in my little pea-brain that the State Department and the White House knew the severity of the attack; protests do not use explosives, Rocket-Propelled Grenades (RPGs) or mortars.  Further, the report does not address the involvement (I might even add culpability) of Congress; they write the laws, dictate the requirements, and control resources.  The ARB did not address the enormous juggling exercise the State Department and other agencies must continue perform in distribution of scarce resources across multiple, global, threat locations.
            The baffling part of this whole affair . . . why on God’s little green Earth did the administration instruct Ambassador Rice to publicly claim the Benghazi attack was a rogue protest gone awry?  They sacrificed an exceptionally capable diplomat for little purpose, and in fact made the credibility situation far worse.  Beyond the deaths of Stevens, Smith, Woods and Doherty, the needless sacrifice of Ambassador Rice to the gods of public opinion is the most disgusting aspect of the Benghazi attack.

Two days after the Newtown, Connecticut tragedy [574], another gunfire incident occurred at the Santikos Mayan Palace 14 theaters in San Antonio, Texas, that was eerily similar to the Aurora, Colorado, theater shooting [554/55], and yet we heard nothing about the event.  I was alerted to the incident by just one of many news networks to which I subscribe; the reference link went to a Blog.  Corroboration and confirmation took more than 30 minutes to attain – an indication of how little the event was covered by the Press.
“Two wounded in theater shooting”
by Hollie O'Connor
San Antonio Express-News
Updated 9:26 am, Monday, December 17, 2012
Normally, I would not even mention such an incident; after all, only two people were wounded; no one was killed, not even the perpetrator, and it was just another crime involving firearms.  The obvious question: so why did I choose to mention it now?  Answer and only reason, the crime had the potential to be as horrific and destructive as the Aurora theater event; however, an armed, off-duty, Bexar County Sheriff officer, who was working at the theater, engaged the shooter and stopped him.  Unfortunately and to my thinking, the defender was not a better shot.  You know what comes next. 
            If we are going to debate the 2nd Amendment and more importantly restrictions and constraints on the rights of every single citizen in this Grand Republic, then we cannot edit, censor, or otherwise filter or truncate the content of the debate.  I have conceded [575] that firearms of all kinds [312] must be part of the debate; the debate must be open on both ends of the spectrum.  While I cannot and will not suggest the San Antonio incident was a perfect, contrarian occurrence, it does suffice to make the point that a diligent, armed citizen can make a dramatic difference and save lives in the face of a crazed individual intent upon destruction and harm.  The Press may not be able to stomach the notion, but We, the People, must do so, as we are debating the rights of ALL citizens, not just those who choose to possess and use firearms.

Comments and contributions from Update no.575:
Comment to the Blog:
“I disagree with your position that the tools killers use do not matter. To draw a parallel to Newtown, a man in China walked into a school recently with murder on his mind, but his ‘tool’ was a knife. He managed to injure 26 people, but killed none. That shows the difference between firearms and other weapons. The nature of the weapon is not the only issue here, but it is an issue. The Second Amendment so cherished by anything-goes gun advocates refers to ‘a well-regulated militia,’ not to ‘anyone who can reach a gun show with cash in hand.’ Also, our current armed-to-the-teeth citizenry has not prevented or remedied the PATRIOT Act, NDAA, or the other infringements on our liberties by our government.
“All parties need further study of the background of that amendment and the Founders’ opinions. Much of that has to do with the fact that the fledgling nation could not afford the type of standing military force that European monarchies had and not to the fear of the US government going rogue. And perhaps we should study other nations that have been more successful in limiting violent deaths rather than interviewing children.
“The so-called ‘fiscal cliff,’ let’s remember, was agreed upon as a common-sense solution to the partisan bickering. My taxes will go up a bit along with most other taxpayers’ payments once the politicians prove they cannot do anything better, and that is a good thing. Americans want roads, law enforcement, the military, and many other government services that we must buy; they do not occur without people being paid to provide them any more than you or I work for free.
“It is shameful that some of the banks involved in the LIBOR investigation are buying their way out of trouble. At least a few of the individuals have been charged; that’s better than nothing.
“I cannot understand why people who claim to advocate in favor of marriage oppose giving access to that institution to gay people. The gay people and the advocates seem to be the only ones still interested in supporting it.
“Removing limited liability from a corporation may not be the most effective method of imposing a ‘death penalty’ on the most severe wrongdoing by the corporation, but some means of permanently dissolving such corporations should be sought. This would indeed impose a penalty on investors in such corporations; that’s the point. The idea is to encourage caution in investment and close oversight by investors.
“Monkeying with the exact manner of paying enormous salaries will only result in counter-maneuvers that defeat a given accounting technique. A more all-encompassing method of placing limits might help, but that should occur only after a lengthy and probably heated international public discussion.
“Let us hope that 2013 will be quieter and saner than 2012. At least the level of political advertising should decline for a while.”
My response to the Blog:
Calvin,
            Re: “tools.”  The PRC knife attack has been used quite generously as justification for a prohibition on certain firearms.  To my knowledge, what we do not know is the type of knife used or the attacker’s motives.  A knife is certainly a deadly weapon.  Again, the key element in efficacy of any weapon is the skill and will of the assailant – the man, not the tool.
            I shall concede the point that I am all in favor of and would support taking every means possible to keep all deadly weapons out of the hands of violent felons, mentally ill citizens, or other disturbed individuals.  I simply cannot support a blanket prohibition on a class of firearms, magazines or ammunition for ALL citizens, because We, the People, do not have the will to focus on the root cause(s) of these violent crimes.
            Re: 2nd Amendment.  You have mentioned two of many federal laws that have chipped away at the freedom and rights of American citizens.  Whether the right to bear arms is ever used again for its original intended purpose is yet to be seen.  Certainly the laws you mentioned moved us closer to the threshold.  A few of us are prepared to tolerate the offense of the PATRIOT ACT, NDAA, and the other intrusive laws as a necessary consequence of the War on Islamic Fascism; however, the moment of truth will come when the exigencies of the War are no longer justification.
            If you wish to understand the 2nd Amendment more than just the words, I recommend starting with Justice Story’s “Commentaries” §§ 1889-1891.
            Re: “fiscal cliff.”  Congress created this cliff with passage of the Budget Control Act of 2011 [PL 112-025; 125 Stat. xxxx; 2.August.2011] [503, 504].  I believe the intent was to force spending reduction, tax reform, and better budget planning.  I fully agree, we all need to pay taxes.  We need government to work for the benefit of We, the People, and this Grand Republic.  The challenge is always balance.  Political partisan parochialism has contaminated and corroded that noble purpose.  We will survive this obstacle as we have all the others.
            Re: LIBOR scandal.  Spot on, brother.  At least UBS traders Hayes and Darin shall face a jury and the law.  We can only hope and expect there will be more.  Yet, I refuse to believe mid-level traders at these banks are the perpetrators.  Perhaps they will roll on their bosses, who made the decisions.
            Re: non-heterosexual rights.  You are not alone.  One day we shall mature as a society and move closer to achieving the noble objectives of this Grand Republic.
            Re: limited liability corporations.  Hard to argue to the contrary.
            Re: salary caps.  Yes, absolutely.  Salary caps are quite like price caps or other expense controls.  I do not think it is the path, but it does reflect the revulsion over the bankers’ contribution to the Great Recession, the EU debt crisis, the mortgage debacle, et cetera.
            We can all hope your prayer comes to fruition.  Merry Holidays and Happy New Year.
 . . . follow-up comments:
“I will leave most of this for another day, but I still want to make my point about the tools available to a given killer. Perhaps a more personal analogy will help. Let us set up a race. The current world champion bicyclist will ride the best racing bicycle in the world from Wichita to Oklahoma City. An hour after he departs, I will begin the same trip by the same route on a borrowed motorcycle.  I don’t own a motorcycle, and I probably have ridden less than 100 miles on motorcycles, but I will win the race. The choice of tool matters at least as much as the will and skill of the person, and that analogy holds up with weapons. No knife, arrow, or blunt object can compete with any firearm in killing people.”
 . . . my follow-up response:
            Agreed.  A motorcycle is a more efficient tool of transportation than a bicycle.  I will also concede that a firearm is a more efficient killing tool than a knife . . . although I must add that a knife in the hands of a skilled assailant is quite effective. 
            The debate continues within our family.  Our youngest son admonished me that I cannot deny that a firearm was part of the equation in the Sandy Hook crime.  Yes, it was.  I never denied that the perpetrator used a Bushmaster 0.223 caliber long rifle.  In fact, I acknowledged the evidence and still do.  I just do not want the Sandy Hook debate to narrow its focus to the weapon, when mental illness, inadequate security, and community complacency are so important in the outcome.
            In our tools debate, I will also concede we could amend the current law that prohibits firearms in the hands of violent felons, to include mentally ill or troubled citizens.  I simply do not see the reason to prohibit firearms for ALL peaceful, law-abiding citizens.  So, our task is how we identify those folks who are not stable and might use firearms to injury other citizens.
            I must admit the central, primary focus of my opinion is what I would label scope creep.  A goodly portion of the broadcast Press, more than a few politicians, and a variety of talking heads clamor for stricter laws prohibiting the possession or use of assault rifles and large capacity magazines.  For the sake of our discussion, please allow me to dissect this concern.  An assault rifle is generally defined in part as having a selectable feature for semi-automatic (one trigger pull = one shot, with automatic feed) and automatic (one trigger pull = multiple shots) operation.  The Bushmaster 0.223 caliber rifle used in the Sandy Hook crime did not have that selectable feature; it looks like an assault rifle, but it is not an assault rifle, despite what misinformed folks like to say.  So, if the Bushmaster rifle is included in the proposed prohibition, then we are talking about semi-automatic firearms.  If so, then it is a very short step to include semi-automatic pistols.  And, if we expand the ban to pistols, then next might be large caliber pistols.  Where do we stop?  BB guns?  Sling-shots?
            So much of my worry is over-zealous law enforcement or prosecutors who abuse the law . . . we give them an inch, they take a mile.  Case in point, Mayor Bloomberg says his objective is to keep “these weapons” out of the hands of people who shouldn’t have them.  At face value, I think we all can and would agree with that objective.  Unfortunately, his definition means anything that fires a projectile.  I share his objective, but not his path.  There are many things we can do to make schools safer before we entertain mucking about with the Constitution.
   Just some more thoughts for your rumination.
Cheers,
Cap


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

24 December 2012

Update no.575


Update from the Heartland
No.575
17.12.12 – 23.12.12
Blog version:  http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,

Before we get into the heavy stuff, I offer a performance of unique and uplifting poignancy in this difficult hour.

The follow-up news items:
-- The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) issued Emergency Airworthiness Directive 2012-0258-E as a consequence of the Air France Flight 447 accident [391] and the final BEA report [552], to amend Airbus A330 and A340 Aircraft Flight Manuals, adding pilot procedures for dealing with inaccurate or disrupted air data; so concludes the episode of a terrible accident that should never have happened.
-- After the Benghazi attack [561] and as required by law, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton convened an independent Accountability Review Board (ARB) to conduct an investigation of the incident and report on their findings.  The unclassified summary of the ARB report was publicly released on Tuesday.  I did not have the capacity to study the report this week; more to follow.

This is not the time of year to be writing this following segment; however, events beyond our control and the boiling debate that ensued leave me little maneuvering room.  Such is life.  As Kurt Vonnegut so succinctly and eloquently said, “And so it goes.”

The Press and certain politicians have been effervescing in the aftermath of the Newtown crime.  We have a sampling of opinion.  First, here is one from Germany.
** “America's Weapons Craze: A Fatally Counterproductive National Identity – America is grieving, praying and discussing stronger gun laws after the school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut on Friday. But the latest horrifying massacre is unlikely to change anything. Gun ownership is an important, if misguided, element of the country's national identity”
A Commentary by Marc Pitzke
Der Spiegel
Published: 12/17/2012
Another view, this one from Great Britain:
** “Connecticut school shooting: two US Senators call for assault weapons ban – Two US Senators became the first of America's pro-gun advocates to break ranks on Monday night as they called for a ban on assault weapons in the wake of the Sandy Hook elementary school shootings”
by Peter Foster, Washington
The Telegraph [of London]
Published: 17 Dec 2012; 7:49PM GMT
Then, we have this most enlightened editorial from the Old Gray Lady.
** “It’s the Guns”
Editorial
New York Times
Published: December 19, 2012
 . . . and, an interesting perspective, differentiating between two forms of mass killers – “suicide terrorists” and “suicidal rampage shooters:
** “What Drives Suicidal Mass Killers”
by Adam Lankford – Op-Ed Contributor
New York Times
Published: December 17, 2012
Lankford says suicidal rampage shooters:
·      “are generally struggling with mental health problems that have produced their desire to die,
·      “have a deep sense of victimization and belief that the killer’s life has been ruined by someone else, who has bullied, oppressed or persecuted him,
·      have “the desire to acquire fame and glory through killing.”
Whether these factors are complete, or even accurate, or not, they seem quite appropriate to me and characteristics we should all pay attention to in everyone we come in contact with in our lives.  Now, more of my relevant opinion, for what it is worth . . .
            I want peaceful, law-abiding human beings to live . . . to fully enjoy their “Life, Liberty and pursuit of Happiness,” yet I also believe in every citizen’s fundamental right to privacy, including women (and men) who know they are not ready to be good parents.  Likewise, I feel the pain of Newtown, Oak Creek, Aurora, Blacksburg, Granada Hills, Columbine, and all the other events of senseless killing in this Grand Republic.  However, as I have said before and believe to my soul, this issue before us is NOT and never will be about the tools used by bad men for these terrible events.  As much as the Press has focused on firearms, why have they not sought out the contributors to the perpetrator’s motives, mental health, medications, and other factors including the community’s foreknowledge and failure to intervene?  Why is the Press not focused on the root cause(s) instead of the inanimate tools legally obtained?  To my limited knowledge, every single one of the perpetrators exhibited some form of mental illness; they planned their events over an extended period, down to the small details as if a military operation, and they displayed signs that were ignored, discounted, or brushed aside as “not my problem.”  If we do not want these events in our society, then the perpetrators are OUR PROBLEM.  I am not prepared to attempt restriction of the 2nd Amendment for every citizen without probable cause and due process of law.  This is not easy to say, but the tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut, happened because of community complacency, NOT because of a Bushmaster 0.223 caliber rifle [FYI: that weapon is not an assault rifle; it just looks like one].
            The self-appointed, national, gun control spokesman Mayor Michael Rubens Bloomberg of New York City is convinced the national mood has changed, and there are sufficient votes to pass stricter gun control laws including the prohibition of assault weapons and high capacity magazines, among other intended restrictions.  Some folks are convinced such prohibitions will solve the problem.  Judging from the Press coverage, strict gun control is the only answer and practically a foregone conclusion.  No meaningful discussion of mental health detection, screening and treatment has taken place.  The prohibitionists wave their hand, scoff at the notion of armed guards in all schools that wish to have them, and summarily dismiss the idea of a mental health registry as part of the gun purchase background check as an unacceptable invasion of the privacy of citizens.  Where is the outrage regarding the invasion of privacy with respect to gun ownership?  Where is the respect for every citizen’s constitutional rights?
            The arguments have reached a new level of emotionalism and intensity, with each side yelling out their dogma.  I am reminded of the inverse in emotional excess with respect to the abortion issue.  This is no longer about solutions; it appears to be solely about political ideology – the same ideological divide that has gotten us to the precipice of the fiscal cliff as this Grand Republic struggles with recovery from the Great Recession.  Yet, despite the extremes of this debate, there are pearls of insight.
            On the Friday, 21.December.2012, broadcast of ABC World News, Chris Cuomo (CC) interviewed six (3 girls & 3 boys) children from his elementary school in Queens, New York.  If you did not see the broadcast, here are their words.
Girl 1: “The monsters in this world are just regular people.”
CC: “Fourth and Fifth Graders take on the tough questions that grip our nation.”
Girl 1: “Why would he do that, and when did he get the urge to do it?”
CC: “Why does it help you to know why he did it?”
Girl 1: “If it’s happenin’, something made him do it, then we can stop that from happening to another person, making them do it again.”
CC: “And, listen to what they say about guns.  Are guns bad?”
Three of the six shake their heads, no, and the three said, no, not always.
Girl 2: “Guns can be good or bad, depending on who’s using them.”
CC: “Is the answer, no guns?”
Girl 1: “Not exactly.”
CC: “What if I go in and say, I need a gun, man; sell me the gun?  Should I be able to get it right there?”
All six children shake their heads and say, no.
Girl 1: “You should limit the amount of bullets that can be in a gun.”
CC: “What do you think is the bigger deal, as to why this happened, that the guns or the culture of violence?”
All six children said, the culture.
CC: “It’s hard to change the culture, isn’t it?  But, as for movies, violent games and music, they say the problem is the user.  Who plays video games?”
All 3 boys + 1 girl raised their hands.
CC: “Now, when you see those things, does it make you want to do those things to regular people?”
Boy 1: “Oh no, it’s just a game.”
CC: “And, you don’t believe the game changes your mind.”
Boy 1: “I don’t think the game is the problem.  I think the person who is playing the games is the problem.”
CC: “And, the controversial idea of armed guards in every school . . . for these kids, not so controversial.”
Boy 2: “They can maybe hire people, to walk around and watch what is going on.”
CC: “Armed guards?”
Boy 2: “Yes, they would actually make me feel safe.”
CC: “If that doesn’t work, George might have the best solution of all.”
Boy 1: “A time machine . . .”
CC: “Time machine?”
Laughter.
Boy 1: “Go back in time and try to stop all that happened, and then you would have like a shield, a very strong one, a holographic one that can deflect bullets.”
CC:  “These kids’ minds were filled with fantastic ideas, but also a solemn prayer.”
Boy 1: “This should have never happened, and that . . . all life is irreplaceable.”
CC: “Chris Cuomo, Queens, New York.”
The words on the screen or page cannot convey the intonation, inflection or confidence of their answers.  Let it suffice to say, we have the wisdom of children.  Perhaps, we should listen to them.
            Powered vehicles (automobiles, trucks, airplanes, ATVs, et cetera) kill more citizens each year than any other implement of killing.  Why is it some folks are so attentive to the possession of firearms?  Why not ban automobiles . . . or ATVs . . . or any other inanimate object or machine that is used to kill people?  This nonsense must stop.  Again, this debate is not about guns; it is about disturbed people who have no respect for other human beings or are clinically insane to the point of not recognizing life itself.  Also, I truly wish the Press would stop claiming that hunting is the only legitimate reason to own or use a firearm.  Guns are necessary for self-defense and the defense of our families and property; the police cannot be everywhere at once.  Let us never forget the 2nd Amendment came into existence to guard against tyranny in any form.  Lastly, if we prohibit certain types of weapons, we will only create an even greater criminal subculture that will supply them to those who want them.

Oh, one more observation . . .  This debate is also NOT about ammunition either.  I was taught early in my adult life . . . never draw a weapon unless you are prepared to kill.  Guns are not for show; they are not for threats or demonstrations.  If I am threatened to the point of aiming a gun at another human being and pulling the trigger, I want that bullet to kill my target.  I am not interested in half-measures or wounding my target; I want him terminated, so he cannot threaten another human being.  So, let us not delude ourselves by this nonsensical argument about projectile lethality.  The point of intervention occurs long before a chambered round is aimed at the chest of an assailant.  I must note the unfortunate reality of these harsh words, but I have no intention of going quietly into the night with respect to my ability to defend my family and myself.  ‘Nuf said!

As an appropriate historical footnote, I offer a sentence from Associate Justice Joseph Story’s opus magnus – Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States:
“The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”
-- Volume III, Chapter XLIV – Amendments to the Constitution, §1890 (January.1833)

I have no idea what to say about the shenanigans that are going on in Washington, DC, other than I am so freakin’ angry these yayhoos cannot get over their schoolyard games to solve a very real problem facing this Grand Republic.

At 01:10 [Z] GMT, 28.October.2012, a week after being admitted to hospital with back pain, Savita Halappanavar, a 31-year-old, pregnant, married woman and resident of Galway, died of septicemia.  She was suffering a miscarriage.  Her family repeatedly requested an abortion to save her life; the medical staff consistently denied those requests.  As a consequence, the Irish government has decided to introduce a combination of legislation and regulations to remove legal uncertainty over exactly when doctors can perform an abortion when a woman’s life is at risk.

The infamous, “unnamed”, White House official leaked to the Press that President Obama plans to nominate Senator John Forbes Kerry, 69, of Massachusetts as secretary of state, to succeed Hillary Rodham Clinton.  Kerry is the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and former candidate for president, so there is no question he is qualified.  Frankly, I preferred Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice, but politics are politics, as we so well know.  C’est la vie.

News from the economic front:
-- As a modestly encouraging sign, Standard & Poor's raised its rating on Greece by six notches to B-minus with a stable outlook from selective default, citing a strong and clear commitment from members of the euro zone to keep Greece in the common-currency bloc.  It is the highest rating S&P has given Greece since June 2011.
-- Swiss banking giant UBS has agreed to pay SFr1.4B (US$1.5B) to regulators as a settlement in the global investigation into the rigging of LIBOR interest rates [550/3].   UBS has become the second bank to settle out of court in the LIBOR scandal (see below).  As part of the settlement, the Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority (FINMA) ordered UBS to cough up SFr59M of profits for its contribution in the scandal. FINMA determined that UBS traders manipulated interest rates between 2006 and 2010.
Fm 552:
The infamous 16, involved, international banks are:
·      Barclays [UK] – US$454M fine [550]
·      Bank of America [U.S.]
·      BTMU [Japan]
·      Citibank [U.S.]
·      Credit Suisse [Switzerland]
·      Deutsche Bank [Germany]
·      Lloyds TSB [UK]
·      HSBC [UK]
·      HBOS [UK]
·      JPMorgan Chase [U.S.]
·      Rabobank [Netherlands]
·      RBC [Canada]
·      RBS [UK]
·      UBS [Switzerland] – US$1.5B fine, two charged [575]
·      West LB [Germany]
·      Norinchuckin [Japan]
-- The Department of Justice announced charges against two former traders at UBS – Tom Alexander William Hayes, 33, of England, and Roger Darin, 41, of Switzerland.  Both men were charged with conspiracy to manipulate the LIBOR global interest rate.  Hayes was also charged with wire fraud and price fixing.  Officials also announced that the UBS's unit in Japan pleaded guilty to fraud and admitted that it manipulated the LIBOR rate.
-- The Wall Street Journal reported on an internal report by a federal regulator that mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac may have lost more than US$3B as a consequence of the LIBOR interest rate scandal.  The unpublished report apparently urges Fannie and Freddie to consider suing the banks involved in setting LIBOR.
-- In the wake of Japanese elections, the Bank of Japan increased its monetary easing with a ¥10T (US$118B) increase in the size of its asset-purchasing program, and signaled that it could move to adopt a higher inflation target.

L’Affaire Madoff [365]:
BREAKING NEWS Thursday, December 20, 2012 6:01 PM EST
Peter B. Madoff Sentenced to 10 Years in Prison for Role in Brother’s Ponzi Scheme
Bernard L. Madoff’s brother, Peter B. Madoff, was sentenced to 10 years in prison on Thursday for his role in enabling the extensive fraud that swindled investors out of billions of dollars.
READ MORE »
-- Peter B. Madoff, the brother of convicted and incarcerated felon Bernie Madoff, was sentenced to 10 years in prison on Thursday for his role in enabling his brother’s extensive, Ponzi Scheme fraud that swindled investors out of billions of dollars.  Peter got off easy, if you ask me.

Comments and contributions from Update no.574:
Subject:  Re: Update no.574
From:  "Craig Young"
Date:  Mon, December 17, 2012 8:18 am
To:  "Cap Parlier"
“Thought you might get a chuckle out of this.”
10 Reasons to Ban Gay Marriage
1.    Being gay in not natural.  Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.
2.    Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.
3.    Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior.  People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.
4.    Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn’t changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can’t marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.
5.    Strait marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Brittany Spears’ 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.
6.    Straight marriages are valid because they produce children.  Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn’t be allow to marry because our orphanages aren’t full yet, and the world needs more children.
7.    Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.
8.    Gay marriage is not supported by religion.  In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country.  That’s why we have only one religion in America.
9.    Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home.  That’s why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.
10. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms.  Just like we haven’t adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.
[Author and date unknown.  Emphasis by the author]
My response:
Craig,
            Excellent use of sarcasm, it seems to me.
Happy Holidays,
Cap

Another contribution:
“Well said on the 2nd amendment.  Massacre is not about tools.  It is always about bad people doing bad things.  We must get this one right or face the consequences.”
My reply:
Lew,
            Spot on, brother.  This is not going to be an easy or simple debate, but we must get it correct.

Comment to the Blog:
“You link to a well-written op-ed piece this week on marriage. I had not been aware of the details of gay marriages, but the idea of “customizing” marriage makes a great deal of sense to me. For a personal example, my wife and I wrote our own vows to avoid some conventional notions that we disregarded, and both our clergy person and I saw it as my wife’s personal decision whether she took my name. The issues raised by Amelia Earhart in her letter address substantive issues that can and should be addressed by each couple rather than being settled by churches or others who have no personal connection to the marriage. As clergy, I see clergy as having a potential role in this process, so long as the clergy person does not seek to impose his or her views of marriage on the couple.
“The defeat of President Obama’s nomination of Dr. Susan Rice provides yet another example of runaway partisanship specifically on the part of Republicans in this country. This short-sighted opposition to any action whatever by Obama also holds up the nominations of dozens of candidates for Federal Judgeships. Of course, the follow-up complaint on that one is about the Federal Courts suffering overload and delays.
“I do not see this as the moment to argue gun control again, but I will point out that your Noah Webster quote does not apply; European nations are not in fact ruled by standing armies. Meanwhile, the USA suffers from the provisions of NDAA, which allow the President to imprison and/or kill anyone with no due process by simply and secretly accusing them of terrorism.
“In reference to parental accountability and community involvement, it remains easier to talk about these than to implement them. In general, controlling parenting techniques without directly invading the home seems impossible. For reasons that are extremely personal, I do not believe that community detection and treatment of mental/emotional illnesses will work without unacceptable limitations on personal freedom.
“In reference to the banking scandals, one way that corporations are not people is that they currently cannot face a death penalty. I suspect a death penalty of some sort would be more effective on corporations than it is on people, because corporate decisions are more calculated than individual choices. Other methods of imposing such a consequence in extreme cases have been proposed, but what about simply revoking their limited liability? If each shareholder of, for example, HSBC or USB, could potentially be held personally liable for extreme illegal actions of the company, caution and legal compliance would become far greater factors than they have been to date. That would further support criminal prosecution of individual wrongdoers as well, I think. Each of the other parties would have a personal stake in bringing consequences to scofflaws rather than themselves.
“What is a ‘bonus to salary ratio compensation cap’? I do not recall ever encountering that term.”
My response to the Blog:
Calvin,
            Re: marriage & Earhart letter.  Very well said, my friend.  There are so many important topics that should be discussed and agreed upon before marriage.  The “customizing” you illuminated represents the agreement between two (or more for that matter) people about to join in marriage should have prior to joining lives, and especially before producing new lives.  We must get beyond the societal expectations of The Box to have more productive dialogue about our marital relationships.
            Re: partisanship.  Whoa, dawgy; not so fast.  Parochial partisanship is not confined to Republicans during the Obama administration.  The opposite was exactly true during the Bush 43 administration.  Nonetheless, that little detail aside, I agree with your assessment.  This mindless parochialism is harming this Grand Republic in so many ways and must end.
            I believe you missed the point of the Webster quotation.  The issue is the potential for governmental tyranny.  You mentioned NDAA; I could add a variety of other recent laws that have infringed upon our most basic freedoms.  These are reasons the Framers sought to protect a well-armed citizenry.
            Re: “parental accountability and community involvement.”  If we attempt to regulate private conduct, I would agree, doing so will never work in a free society.  I am NOT advocating for greater or further governmental intrusion.  I do not know the details of Nancy Lanza’s struggle to raise her youngest son, but I imagine she found herself with a deep dilemma – schools probably resisted dealing with his personality and developmental problems that forced her to home school him, which in turn further isolated him socially.  There are signs the community knew well of her struggles.  Tough decisions must be made when it is time to institutionalize problematic individuals.  We do not like to think of such actions or states, but that is our reality.  Law enforcement cannot intervene until a crime has been committed or about to be committed, which is why I like the idea of a social police – able to intervene in non-criminal cases.  We need to think out of the box before we start down the path of restricting constitutional rights of ALL citizens.
            Re: “limited liability.”  This is a tricky issue.  Making shareholders liable to corporate actions would probably only hurt small investors.  The big money guys would probably have access to information enabling them to bail before a crisis, leaving the small guys holding the bag.  It would quite probably curtail investment.  Shareholders are an obvious starting point as they are the ultimate owners.  However, I think corporate officers are a more appropriate target; after all, it is their decisions that produce criminal conduct, and pretend ignorance should never be a defense – if they didn’t know, they should have known.
            Re: “What is a ‘bonus to salary ratio compensation cap’?”  In the proposed EU law, if a bank officer’s annual salary is €1M, his maximum (presumably performance-based) annual bonus with at 1:1 cap would be €1M, for a total compensation in a given year of €2M, or €3M for a 2:1 cap.  I appreciate the objective, but I’m not sure that is a wise path.

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