Update from the Heartland
No.567
22.10.12 – 28.10.12
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
The follow-up news items:
-- This whole, “who shot John,” Benghazi kerfuffle is really
getting irritating. All these
folks who know virtually nothing about intelligence operations, the fog of war,
or the enormous challenge of sifting through mountains of information
continuously seem to be quite authoritative in their condemnation of the
administration in its handling of the before and after to the Benghazi attack [561]. There are never enough resources to respond to every threat. Judgments must be made. Probability says they cannot be correct
every time. Let us give the
benefit of the doubt to those standing the line.
State Treasurer Richard Earl Mourdock of Indiana is a Tea
Party conservative and the Republican candidate for U.S. Senate. He defeated six-term Senator Richard “Dick”
Lugar in the state’s spring primary election [543]. On Tuesday,
Mourdock joined another Republican senatorial candidate Todd Akin [558], after stepping on the
rape-abortion landmine. During a campaign
debate with his Democratic opponent, he answered a question regarding his
position on abortion. Mourdock
said, “I know there are some who disagree and I respect their point of view but
I believe that life begins at conception. The only exception I have to have an
abortion is in that case of the life of the mother. I just struggled with it
myself for a long time but I came to realize life is that gift from God that I
think even if life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is
something that God intended to happen.”
What is it about these men that compel them to be so bloody ignorant
regarding rape? Perhaps they have
been so thoroughly consumed by their focus on the moment of conception that it totally
blinds them autonomy of a woman’s body.
After all, in the classical sense, a woman was the necessary procreative
vessel acquired by a man to produce offspring to extend his bloodline. At the very root, men like Mourdock are
so consumed by the urge to control and constrain a woman’s physiological procreative
processes that they lose all perspective regarding EVERY citizen’s fundamental right to privacy, regardless of
gender, race, ethnicity, religion, political affiliation, disability or sexual
orientation.
Here
is a novel suggestion. Let’s
recruit a big, bad, bruisin’ bubba just outta prison to rape these bozos and
then let’s see how they feel. I am
appalled at how ignorant and insensitive some men can be. God’s will, really? I recognize and acknowledge that
abortion is an important political topic, but this nonsense of injecting the
State into a very private, personal, and emotional issue is simply a
non-starter. Sure, the social
conservatives and religious fundamentalists among us are passionate in their
political position, but their beliefs do NOT give them the right to impose upon
any citizen’s fundamental right to privacy and freedom itself. If we want to solve the problem, then
let us deal with the root causes rather than violate individual freedom.
I
want abortion to be relegated to the scrap heap of all the other outmoded and
discarded medical procedures as much as the most ardent anti-abortion radical,
but the notion espoused by some men like Mourdock and Akin that the State
should intrude upon a woman’s most elemental right to privacy is an affront to
freedom itself and not an acceptable or even tolerable path to the
objective. This is precisely why
social conservatives like Mourdock will never gain my vote – freedom is simply
too precious to be turned over to men like him. If they can argue for the State to so intimately impose upon
a citizen’s fundamental right to privacy, they can justify anything they
wish. No thanks!
Would someone be so kind to explain to me what they mean
when some citizens say they want “to take ‘their’ country back”? What do they mean? How far back to they wish to go? We could go back to 1965 and use the
law to deny citizens with dark skin pigmentation the right to vote. We could go a little farther back, say
1954, to segregate children based on their appearance or the appearance of
their parents. How about going
back to 1920 and remove the right to vote for women . . . oh yeah, and we could
prohibit the consumption of alcoholic beverages or other delivery systems while
we are going back that far.
Perhaps they want us to go back to 1842 or earlier where only educated,
Caucasian, male, land owners voted for governmental representatives and made
the laws that governed all people – citizens or otherwise. Oh heck, they might actually want us to
go all the way back to the pre-revolutionary days when Protestant-Christian
religion was the state religion, and imposed their religion upon everyone by
law and certainly enforced by community condemnation and expulsion. How far back do these “patriots” want
us to turn back the clock? As an
enthusiastic but novice historian, what is it about the past that is so much
more attractive than the future?
From
my perspective, this Grand Republic represents many principles, foremost among
those is “Liberty and Justice for all” – Freedom – for all, not
just the majority, or some privileged few, or those who happen to ascribed to
certain processes for recognizing God’s greatness. So, when some bloody politician says he wants to take our
country back, I am intellectually offended. What he is actually saying is, he wants to impose his
beliefs, his opinions, his will upon all citizens. He perceives that he is the majority, that he knows what is
best for all citizens, that his freedom is essential, but the freedom of everyone
else who does not think like him is subservient, less important, and otherwise
contemptible. To me, this “take
our country back” notion is simply another form of royal prerogative or fascism
for that matter. So, the next time
you hear some doofus politician says he wants to “take our country back,” I respectfully
ask you to think about what that statement really means.
The third and last presidential debate, sans Libertarian,
Reform and Green Party candidates, occurred on Monday, at Lynn University in
Boca Rotan, Florida, moderated by Bob Lloyd Schieffer of CBS News. The highlight for me was President
Obama’s “horses and bayonets” retort.
We can argue the proper size of the military along with the associated
Defense spending. However, the
germane question is the mission assignments of our military. I believe Governor Romney was also
correct; our military has been stretched far too thin, which in turn puts an
inordinate and unacceptable strain on our citizen-soldiers. This situation has been true since
President Bush committed the United States in Afghanistan and Iraq as part of
the War on Islamic Fascism without mobilizing the nation and expanding our
combat forces accordingly. Our
military possesses vastly superior mobility than it did in 1917, or 1991 for
that matter. I am no longer convinced
we need major combat forces deployed around the world. Conversely, since 2001, I have likewise
remained convinced we do not have sufficient combat forces to carry on combat
operations at the level we have asked the military to sustain. We should either grow the combat forces
or reduce the missions to fit the forces we can afford.
After the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) barred
champion cyclist Lance Edward Armstrong for life from Olympic sports, Union
Cycliste Internationale (ICU) President Patrick “Pat” McQuaid
announced at a press conference in Geneva that Armstrong had “no place in
cycling.” The ICU erased his name
from the record books and left those seven years without a winner as the whole
sport was tainted during those years.
Even Bryant Gumbel vilified Armstrong in this week’s episode of HBO Real
Sports. The public destruction of
Lance Armstrong is beginning to rankle my hackles and beginning to feel like
gross over-compensation by the USADA and ICU for their inadequacies,
complacency and ineptitude – to make Armstrong the public fall-guy. Basta! Enough already!
News from
the economic front:
-- According to the Wall Street Journal, the federal government
filed a civil lawsuit against Bank of America, alleging the bank passed losses to
federal taxpayers by misrepresenting the quality of home loans it sold to government-sponsored,
mortgage-finance firms Fannie Mae
and Freddie Mac. The action
seeks at least US$1B in damages (which I suspect is a serious underestimation).
Also, according to the Journal, the
filing represents “a novel effort by the government to defray costs tied to the
2008 bailout of Fannie and Freddie, and potentially opens a new front against a
banking industry already dealing with hefty legal costs.” I do not feel much compassion here.
-- Rajat Kumar Gupta, 63, the former managing director of
McKinsey & Company as well as a director for Goldman Sachs and Procter
& Gamble, was sentenced to two years in prison for leaking boardroom
secrets to the former hedge fund manager Raj Rajaratnam [409, 410, 418, 435, 436, 491]. He was also a top adviser to the foundations of Bill Gates
and Bill Clinton. Gupta is
the most prominent figure to face prison in the government’s sweeping crackdown
on insider trading in the wake of the financial crisis of 2008.
-- The Wall Street Journal also reported that 80 big-name,
U.S. corporate, chief executives, from Aetna to Weyerhaeuser, joined to
pressure Congress to reduce the federal deficit with tax-revenue increases as
well as spending cuts. The Journal
indicated the CEOs said “any fiscal plan ‘that can succeed both financially and
politically’ has to limit the growth of health-care spending, make Social
Security solvent and ‘include comprehensive and pro-growth tax reform, which
broadens the base, lowers rates, raises revenues and reduces the deficit.’”
-- Her Majesty’s Government reported that the Great Britain’s
double-dip recession has ended after the economy grew 1% in 3Q2012. The strong rise in Gross Domestic
Product (GDP) comes as welcome news for the government, whose austerity program
has been under considerable political pressure.
-- Japan’s Ministry of Finance announced their intention to
hold crisis talks with dealers in the government bond market, to address growing
fears over the impact of a political standoff regarding state finances. Opposition parties are blocking a bill
that would allow the government to borrow ¥38.3T (US$479B) to finance this
year’s deficit. Sound familiar?
The Opposition is using the financial situation to press Prime Minister
Yoshihiko Noda to call a general election. Unless the bill is passed in the
next extraordinary session of parliament [33 days], bond auctions would have to
be scrapped for the first time in decades.
-- The International Monetary Fund (IMF) warned that
Portugal must make tough policy choices to close a “large and durable fiscal
gap” amid “rising social hardship” and growing “political and social
resistance” to more austerity. In
the IMF’s report on Lisbon’s progress with its €78B bailout, they said the
government would have to find some balance between “strong additional”
adjustment measures and “avoiding undue strains on the economy and employment.”
-- The remaining 9 of 16 identified banks received subpoenas
in connection with the international investigation into alleged widespread
LIBOR interest-rate manipulation by the banks [552].
-- The Commerce Department reported the U.S. GDP grew at an
annual rate of 2.0% in 3Q2012, up from 1.3% in 2Q2012, but still too slow for
significant job creation or reduction of the unemployment rate. The GDP beat economists’ forecasts of
1.8% growth. Consumer spending
increased 2%. The federal government
spending surged 9.6% after falling in the previous two months. The housing industry is showing signs
of improvement. The clouds of the
Great Recession are thinning.
Continuation comments from Update no.565:
“This will be late for the coming week's blog, but I'll
answer for my own satisfaction.
“I still find it confusing that you so staunchly defend
personal freedom right up until someone uses the word "war" to excuse
taking them away.
“Perhaps you need to study the European Union situation more
closely. Germany has indeed bankrolled the troubles in Southern Europe, and
that is what her part in the current crisis concern. The Germans seek to avoid
responsibility for their (profitable) open-handedness. In any economic crisis,
one need only follow the money to achieve understanding. I had thought of it as
‘common knowledge’ that the Germans are seeking to protect their bankers from
risks fairly similar to the ‘too big to fail’ banks here.”
My reply:
As
I do in such cases, I include contributions in the next Update as continuations
from the original.
Re:
personal freedom. I do not see or
sense the conflict of which you speak.
There are orders of magnitude differences between a law-abiding citizen,
a citizen-criminal, and an extra-national battlefield combatant. War is a discriminator both logically
and under the law.
Re:
Germany. I could say the same,
actually. Germany is not obligated
to support Greece. They have done
so to date out of respect for and belief in the European Union, of which Greece
is a member. Under what obligation
does Germany hold responsibility for the corruption, largesse and malfeasance
of the Greek government?
Protecting their banks is a plausible cause, although not publicly
substantiated to my knowledge (perhaps that is the study of which you speak);
there are numerous other ways to indemnify their banks against loss without
supporting Greece.
. . . follow-up comments:
“The problem with your statement about ‘a law-abiding
citizen, a citizen-criminal, and extra-national battlefield combatant’ is that
it's the courts' job to distinguish among them, not the President's or any
individual's. And you have yet to show me an actual war.
“You still need to follow the money to understand the German
role in the EU, not some ideological concept.”
. . . my follow-up reply:
Re:
court’s job. As a general rule,
you are precisely correct, and as applied to the first two, there is no
argument whatsoever. However, if
you consult recent judicial decisions, I do believe you will find that rule is
not quite so clear. We can go back
to:
Ex Parte Quirin [317 U.S. 1 (1942)] [170]
regarding unconventional combatants.
Recent rulings are mixed and I would say still unsettled,
although leaning heavily toward the government’s broad authority regarding
“extra-national battlefield combatants”; see:
Al-Aulaqi v. Obama [USDC DC case 1:10-cv-01469-JDB (2010)] [479]
Bensayah v. Obama [5CCA no. 08-5537 (2010)] [448]
Al Maqaleh v. Gates [CCA DC no. 09-5265 (2010)] [463]
among others.
The Supreme Court has yet to decide these extra-national battlefield
combatant cases.
Re:
war. To show you “an actual war,”
I must know what your definition of war is?
Re:
follow the money. Indeed! That task is beyond my capability and
capacity. I have not seen any
public information that would suggest the culpability of the German banks you
indicated. Your assistance with such
information would be greatly appreciated.
Comments and contributions from Update no.566:
“Good points on the Benghazi attack. Congressmen Issa
and Chaffetz made fools of themselves when they held open hearings on the issue
and divulged classified information while trying to play gotcha.
Actually, we shouldn’t know the details about what the USG was doing
there- and who was doing it—‘sources and means’. Below is an account of
the attack which seems to be factual- and non-ideological.
My reply:
I
absolutely agree. We have no right
to know the details for a host of OpSec reasons, not least of which is sources
and means. The USG has carried out
intentional subterfuge through history, e.g., Operation TIGER, the disaster at
Slapton Sands, prior to Operation OVERLORD. To me, what label we put on it is irrelevant. Doing a proper investigation and going
after the perpetrators are relevant.
Nonetheless, my military and historical curiosity are peaked. Also, SecState must make security
judgments every day; occasionally she’ll get it wrong – a fact of life in
wartime.
Another contribution:
“I actually heard that expression what was it? Goosy Woosie,
on the BBC this week! I could
hardly believe my ears!
“Your presidential campaign is getting, as always, a lot of
coverage here. Doing some channel
hopping last night before bed I found coverage on 'Russia today, Sky news, and
Al Jazeera'. Whilst the BBC are going frantic over accusations that they
allowed a pop presenter, a one Jimmy Savile (later knighted) free range with
young girls. Today the [BBC] DG is being questioned by MPs. The British public, who saw this
character as a great social benefactor, are I believe, in genuine shock at
these accusations now running into over 100. But there you are Cap, these people are amongst us, they
move in the darkened corners of life, they creep and slither in the long grass
of their paltry existence. They are to be guarded against and treated for the despicable
acts they perpetrate. I know from my own youth work how alert we are to this
threat but somehow they sometimes get through the safeguarding system. I have my own views on how to treat
these misfits but you my friend might find them a bit right wing or possibly
you wouldn't.
“Oh by the way, was going through some old research and
found one of our earliest e-mails 2002! Can you believe that? I can't. I notice
I was researching the book I have just finished this summer!. Unbelievable. Have you ever been to Abilene? Could be
a song title that. I'm sure I still owe you a pint... we need to sort that.
My response:
Re:
“Goosy Woosie.” I think the term
you are referring to is, Loosey Goosey = undisciplined, unstructured. I thought it was a uniquely American
term. Then again, we borrow your
phrases too.
Re:
“presidential campaign.” Our silly
season has less than two weeks to go, then we shall be done with it. I will be glad to have it done,
although this year’s version was not as oppressive as the 2008 edition.
Re:
“Savile.” There are bad men
everywhere, in all walks of life.
We must be ever vigilant.
The Savile case appears to be a bona fide case of pedophilic action, and
if so proven in a court of law, I doubt you could be more severe than me; I
hope he feels the full weight of the law.
Unfortunately, such cases seriously cloud the intellectual debate.
It
has been some time, now, hasn’t it.
No, I’ve not been to Abilene, yet, I’m sad to say. I’ve been looking for a good Saturday
to take a nice bike ride up there to visit the Eisenhower Museum, but not made
it yet.
I’m
not sure who owes who a pint, but we could sure have fun tradin’
obligations. LOL Someday, we shall enjoy the
opportunity.
. . . follow-up comments:
“Oopps
sorry, now I'm confused! Did I hear Gossey Wossie or Lossey Gossey, ah, what
the hell...
“This man
Savile, is deceased by approx. 1 year. He was awarded a Papal Knighthood for
his good work. The head of the Catholic Church here is being urged to contact
the Pope to have the honour rescinded. He was knighted by the Queen and
appeared an all-round good egg. The dirt surrounding this individual gets
deeper by the day. His onerous activities were known by some but nothing was
said. Did we accept that behaviour then, as some are saying? And now in more enlightened times we
find it so offensive? The problem deepens as now other dignities from the
entertainment world of his time are being dragged into this mire. We have not
heard the end of this by far. It's a sad sad business for sure. I hope there are no other skunks lurking
in the long grass and planning such despicable activities still masquerading
amongst us. I apologise that's an insult to Skunks. His rather grand headstone has been removed by his family
and broken up. A man who did so
much good in our society and yet did so much harm. Extraordinary.
“Enough Cap,
I think I this man doth complain too much. There are good things in life,
family, friends, colleagues and the English weather. But there I overstep
myself! 2dgsC = 36F tonight and it's still October!
“Ah yes,
the Eisenhower museum. When I was researching my now finished wartime love
story they were very helpful on his origins and life. Although I never
mentioned him by name in my writings I hope it's obvious to the reader that it
is him. The smiling general says it all. I would like to have met him. There
aren't many I can put into the category but he is one. Although I understand he wasn't such an
exceptional President? Yes Cap a visit
I would like to make too. We get no younger. These things need doing! Enough! I meander through life, but not alone. Goodnight. I
need to make large steps not small ones.”
. . . my follow-up response:
No
worries, mate. We can make new
phrases.
Re:
Savile. I suspect there will be
more rats in the nest.
Re:
weather. It was sunny here today,
but nighttime temperatures are below freezing. ‘Tis that time of year.
Re:
Eisenhower. He was an interesting
man – the right man at the right time.
He was not a great president, but he was certainly not the worse either.
Re:
visit. Indeed, my friend.
Comment to the Blog:
“I’m glad you spent time with your grandkids. That’s one of
life’s joys.
“Conspiracy theories give people something to do other than
face their own lives. Kind of like getting drunk without the hangovers. The
Benghazi discussion comes as an opportunity to those who seek electoral victory
at any cost to the nation.
“China’s economic slowdown is a short lesson in
macro-economics. The Chinese economy depends on EU and US consumption. Their
interdependence with other economies disproves the notion that we all compete
with each other. The fact is, Adam Smith’s picture of small shopkeepers and
local consumers has given way to cargo ships, automation, and worldwide instant
communication. “Our” interests and “their” interests, as nations, have a great
deal in common. Unfortunately, we have yet to learn how to harmonize for the
general benefit.
My reply to the Blog:
Re:
grandchildren. Thx mate. There are all treasures and life’s
reward.
Re:
conspiracy theories. Well said,
indeed! Spot on! This whole “who shot John” kerfuffle is
a non-productive distraction from the real issues, and as you said, a blatant
partisan political ploy to gain votes.
I do not take kindly to such nonsense.
Re:
world economics. Agreed. Yet, there are other factors that
mutate the interdependency model, e.g., national political factors, hegemonic
pressure, et cetera.
. . . follow-up comments:
“I think by ‘mutate’ you must mean ‘mitigate’ (lessen). I
agree that those nationalistic factors do indeed detract from people's ability
to see and carry out that interdependency. All the same, the fact is that the
various economic "actors" need each other. The ability to
work with that despite short-sighted distractions is one means of demonstrating
foresight and insight. That, of course, is not easy.”
. . . my follow-up reply:
LOL. Well done.
Well,
actually, I did intentionally choose the word mutate = to change. Not all change is good. The PRC feels the energy of its
expanding economic power. Some of
those motives are understandable nationalistic interests. Some of those interests must be
tolerated, as they must tolerate our nationalistic interests, but when those
interests become hegemonic as they are in the South China Sea or with the
Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands, things can get out of hand quickly. The same assessment can be made with
the IRI’s drive for nuclear technology; I do not doubt their desire for energy
production, but likewise I believe they also seek a nuclear weapon as well as
the production of dangerous materials to be passed to their surrogate terrorism
actors to destabilize the West and specifically the United States; they want to
dominate the region just as Darius I sought. The world economy is not a simple engine.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
