28 October 2013

Update no.619

Update from the Heartland
No.619
21.10.13 – 27.10.13
To all,

My most humble apologies for my faux pas of oversight . . .
On Tuesday, 15.October.2013, President Obama awarded the Medal of Honor to Captain William D. Swenson, USA, of Seattle, Washington, for conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty during Operation Buri Booza II (Dancing Goat II).  On the morning of Sunday, 8.September.2009, Captain Swenson was serving as an embedded advisor to the Afghan National Border Police, Task Force Phoenix, Combined Security Transition Command-Afghanistan in support of 1st Battalion, 32nd Infantry Regiment, 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division, as his combat team was moving on foot toward the village of Ganjgal, Kunar Province, Afghanistan, for a meeting with village elders.  The team entered a well-executed Taliban ambush.  Captain Swenson repeatedly defied withering small arms, heavy automatic weapons, RPG and mortar fire to rescue his comrades, evacuate the wounded, organize their defense and account for everyone in his team.  Thank you Captain Swenson for your extraordinary service to this Grand Republic.

Rather than continue my Quixotic railing against the duplicity, hypocrisy, corruption and outright insanity of pork barrel politics practiced so expertly by our dear, esteemed, Members of Congress, I should offer solutions.  So, in that vein, here is a suggestion.
            Let us agree by law to set aside a small percentage of every annual budget solely for the largesse of Members of Congress.   Each Member would be allocated a portion of the Largesse Pool to be dispersed at his discretion.  Since we have senators and representatives, each citizen is represented three times, so the pool would be divided into thirds: a Senior Senator Portion, a Junior Senator Portion, and a Representative Portion.  If there is no proper budget, then there is no largesse pool.  Further, just as they do with their various pork projects and earmarks, they would have no requirement for legislative or public scrutiny; they simply must declare this project or that is to be funded by their respective Largesse Portion – no justification or rationale required.  If their projects in any particular year exceeded their Portion, they are permitted to trade or pool their Portion allocations as they choose.  In this scheme, no expenditures will be permitted beyond the Largesse Pool without an individual, specific, legislative bill that must go through the community review process, and by proactively notice to the Press and the public – active notification rather than passive access; i.e., no earmarks, no attachments, no amendments, only the straight bill.  Thus, if Congress passes a proper budget (continuing resolutions or any other similar instrument do not qualify) and as an example we say the Largesse Pool for a given fiscal year was say US$3B, each senator of a state would have an allocation of US$20M and each representative would have an annual allocation of US$2.299M.  The only restriction other than as noted above would be it must be a public project; they could not spend the funds on themselves, or family members, or cronies, or contributors, or intangibles; they could spend it on a museum of tiddlywinks or a bridge to nowhere as long as the project is auditable and fulfilled.
            Since human beings elected to Congress are flawed and cannot resist the temptation of corruption, let us legalize corruption, get it out into the sunlight, kind of like drug abuse or prostitution should be.  We must find a way to stop these damnable unscrutinized pork barrel attachments to vital legislation. 

Another, different opinion:
“Edward Snowden is no traitor”
by Richard Cohen
Washington Post
Published: October 21 [2013]
Since I am one of those who uses the term “traitor” in referring to Snowden or his actions, I feel compelled to acknowledge Cohen’s opinion as well as argue my case more specifically.  Cohen asks, “If he is a traitor, then which side did he betray and to whom does he now owe allegiance?”  I do not believe treason requires a recipient of the betrayal or allegiance to a foreign or rebel entity; betrayal is the only requirement.  Nonetheless, Snowden betrayed the United States of America and We, the People. His only discernible allegiance is to himself, as the prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner.  Cohen concluded, “But (and?) I am at a loss to say what should be done with Snowden. He broke the law, this is true. He has been chary with his information, but he cannot know all its ramifications and, anyway, the government can’t allow anyone to decide for himself what should be revealed. That, too, is true. So Snowden is, to my mind, a bit like John Brown, the zealot who intensely felt the inhumanity of slavery and broke the law in an attempt to end the practice. My analogy is not neat — Brown killed some people — but you get the point. I suppose Snowden needs to be punished but not as a traitor. He may have been technically disloyal to America but not, after some reflection, to American values.”  Edward Snowden and John Brown are not comparable.  Yes, they both broke established law.  Brown fought the scourge of slavery.  We could argue that Snowden fought against what he saw as illegal, unconstitutional surveillance and spying by agencies of the U.S. Government (USG).  However, Snowden chose a path to harm the entire nation, not just those he believed exceeded their legal authority.  Brown sought only to harm those involved with slavery.  I could accept Cohen’s argument, if Snowden had chosen a means to raise the question without damaging national security.  I think Cohen is flat wrong.  And, I believe Snowden is a traitor by the strictest or any definition, and should be tried and punished as such.

News from the economic front:
-- The Labor Department finally reported the U.S. economy added 148,000 jobs in September., as the unemployment rate decreased to 7.2 per centum.  Analysts had expected an increase of 180,000 jobs last month, and that the unemployment rate would remain at 7.3 per centum.  The October report will reflect some of the impact of the USG shutdown.
-- The Federal Reserve proposed new rules requiring the largest banks to hold enough safe assets—such as cash or those easily convertible to cash—to fund their operations for 30 days, if other sources of funding are not available. The proposal goes beyond international agreements and is intended to strengthen the ability of the largest banks to withstand periods of market stress.  The rules are also intended to prevent a repeat of the 2008 financial crisis, when financial markets froze due to a lack of liquidity.
-- The Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) announced US$5.1B in settlements with J.P. Morgan Chase, including US$4B to end legal actions over securities disclosures and US$1.1B covering mortgage repurchases.  The deal apparently clears a lawsuit alleging the bank misled Fannie-Mae and Freddie-Mac about the quality of mortgages it sold to them during the housing boom, and less than the US$6B billion initially sought by FHFA.

Comments and contributions from Update no.618:
Comment to the Blog:
“I reside in the U.S. State of Ohio, and I remain unaware of any issues concerning the Lower Ohio River. There are ways and means of following campaign contributions and awarded contracts to seek out the pork-barrel culprit in the lock-and-dam issue, but it’s simpler to note that Senator McConnell is the only suspect who voted for the project.
“I’ll leave your main issue mostly alone except to note that France, Brazil and others are more concerned with the NSA violations of their personal and collective privacy than with Mr. Snowden. Me too.
“I have no idea why veterans and others would be unaware of the cause of Federal shutdown.
“The Baseline Scenario economics blog pointed out this past week that rating services’ rating of the Federal government mean very little right now. Nobody believed that Government debt would remain unpaid. The only question was exactly when that would happen. Usually that matters very little for the large entities that would be making decisions related to the issue.
“Realistically, “a billion here and a billion there” means less to JP Morgan Chase than it apparently did to Senator Dirksen. At least, they seem not to mind racking up fines in that range.”
My response to the Blog:
Calvin,
            I do not know about the worthiness of the Lower Ohio River construction project.  Further, I do not have to time or capacity to work the laborious process of tracking down the source §123.  My point for illuminating the change was the timing, choice and ethics of adding it specifically to the continuing appropriations act, delaying a proper appropriations law(s) and increasing the debt limit to respect the spending by Congress.  If the project is worthy, then it can withstand the legislative scrutiny and proper rigor rather than buried in a critical stopgap law.  It should have been discussed in the Press, the local media, townhall meetings, and petitions to various governmental agencies.  The lack of general regional public awareness strongly suggests the project is exactly what I believe it is – pork barrel benefits for local crony construction companies and rich donors.
            The faux public indignation over the Snowden betrayal belies the reality of international intelligence operations.  France is notorious for their intelligence agencies breaking into hotel rooms or any other facility that struck their interest.  It happened to me in 1990 when I participated in the Paris Airshow, and it still happens to this day.
            The veteran protest at the World War II Memorial is so typical of the political extremes at both ends of the spectrum.  They have no qualms using citizens or veterans for their parochial, selfish, political purposes.  Those veterans may have been coincidental or they may have been die-hard Tea Party supporters bent upon embarrassment of the President.  Either way, using the WW II Memorial as a cause célèbre for the anti-PPACA folks is wrong in every way I can think of.  Being used like that really pokes the coals for me.
            For big banks like JP Morgan Chase, it is just a cost of doing business they pass along to the shareholders and customers.  The only thing that possibly stands a chance of slowing down this rampant greed is long-term prison sentences and prohibitions from the industry.
 . . . round two:
“Re the Lower Ohio River Project, that's pretty much what I said. If someone wants to follow this particular money trail, they have a starting point. What might make it worthwhile for someone is the utter hypocrisy of crusading against spending while inserting new projects within your constituency into the budget.
“The ultimate usefulness of the Snowden and various other well-publicized revelations is that collectively they might change "business as usual" in the mis-named intelligence community.
“The specific protest at the World War II memorial flies in the face of common sense a little too much to avoid the implication of being a setup. US politics is not getting any more ethical.”
 . . . my response to round two:
            Re: “earmarks.”  And, that was precisely my point . . . the hypocrisy and outright audacity to add another US$2.2B of new spending for a local project to a continuing resolution spending authorization after putting the nation and the world through the trauma of uncertainty.  There must be a better way.
            Re: “intelligence.”  I sure hope the Snowden treason does not change IC’s means & methods; they work.  That is not to say reforms are not needed, but I’m reluctant to support restrictions.  Yes, there are reforms required.  I have advocated for filters or firewalls of sorts for a long time, to reduce the potential to use the data collected for collateral or political purposes.  You suggest the IC is mis-named.  What would you name the IC?
            Re: “politics & ethics.”  The reference antipodes are mutually exclusive and defy common sense.  To watch these politicians defile monuments and veterans along with other good citizens really raises my ire.
 . . . round three:
“In re the intelligence community (which is neither notably intelligent nor a true community), my point was precisely the opposite of what you said. Edward Snowden, Wikileaks, etc., will change the ‘means and methods’ of government by repeatedly providing proof that secrecy has become impossible to assure. The enforced transparency that is occurring is not limited to any given nation or phase of operations, and that may well result in healthier limits on governing bodies in general.


"Another name for what you call the ‘intelligence community’? Spies."
 . . . my response to round three:
            I suppose the simple question here is, if we make all of our intelligence material public, aren’t we telling our enemies exactly what we know?  If our enemies know what we know, they also know what we don’t know.  It doesn’t get much better than that for our enemies.  So, how is that a good thing?

Another contribution:
“I am not now able to completely digest and respond to your latest Update. However, I believe maybe instead of treating Snowden like he is a traitor, perhaps, we should be looking at our own government and the NSA as traitors to our Constitution and lawful Americans. We are on very dangerous slopes of balance. Our Fourth Amendment rights are breached by those you believe are there to protect US.  My 1st Amendment rights gets violated daily in the name of political correctness ("hate speech"?). My
2nd Amendment rights get breached all the time in the good old state of California. My 4th Amendment rights again get violated going through highway checkpoint, regardless of what the $old-out SCOTUS rule. Most of them are traitors, total sellouts. You are very critical, and you have your right, against Cruz and the Tea Party. Maybe Cruz and they are the 
few left in Washington who truly are American. George Washington was after all considered a revolutionary, today he'd be a terrorist.
“And those that are supposed to be sworn to uphold our Constitution, are much worse I bet than Snowden. Your targeting seems off, in all due respect, Cap.”
My reply:
            Oh my . . . a lot in a few words.  I’m going to try to break it down into segments.
            Re: “traitor.”  Perhaps we need to agree on a definition.  The dictionary says a traitor is someone who betrays another person or his country.  As used in the Constitution, treason is a betrayal of the country – the key word being betrayal.  In this context, betrayal means being unfaithful in guarding, maintaining or fulfilling his commitment to this Grand Republic.  Regardless of his employment status, he took and signed an oath to protect (not disclose) the information he had access to . . . to anyone who did not hold the appropriate security clearance AND had a need to know.  The information he chose to steal and disclose to the Press and public was about as highly classified as it gets within the U.S. classification system.  He chose to be prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner all by himself; he had no way to know or appreciate the context of what he considered wrong.  George Washington did NOT do that EVER; he operated with a collective, resisting oppression.  Snowden did nothing even remotely similar.
            Re: “USG.”  My opinion(s) does not exclude criticism of the USG.  Those key individuals charged with clearing him and supervising him failed miserably to perform their duties.  If the NSA or any other element of the IC exceeded its authority under the law, they should be prosecuted.  There is culpability with in the USG.  I trust those responsible will pay the appropriate price for their failure(s).  Further, I have long advocated for IC reforms to better control the classified information we collect.  I truly wish Elliott Spitzer had had the strength and courage to challenge what the politcos did to him; I believe he was truly harmed by the NSA warrantless surveillance program – opportunity lost.
            Part of the basis of our system of jurisprudence (right or wrong) requires an injury or impending injury to have a foundation for legal action.  I’m not aware of any injury, or oppression, or threat suffered by Snowden.  Are their elements of his disclosures that are valid topics of public debate and action – YES!  What he did and how he did it was not to foster public debate, but rather to inflict serious injury on this Grand Republic.  Further, he took his intentional, purposeful, informed action to harm the United States of America during wartime; that is treason by any definition.  As I have written before, I am not aware of any treason that has been more damaging to the national defense of the United States than what Snowden has done, and that goes from Benedict Arnold to Snowden.  In a slim sense, I think Snowden may have seen evidence he believed violated the Constitution; however, the expanse, scale and depth of his treason defy a noble purpose.  We need public debate on some of these issues, but NOT this way.
            Re: “Our Fourth Amendment rights are breached.”  Really?  How have you been harmed?  Have you seen any evidence your privacy has been violated?  Certainly, the generalizations offered second, third, fourth hand suggest a potential violation of our collective 4th Amendment rights, but I have seen no evidence . . . only the Press yammerings about these Snowden revelations.  I have physical proof the USG censored personal mail during WW 1 and WW 2; I don’t recall public outrage at those proven violations of 4th Amendment rights. 
            Re: “My 1st Amendment rights gets violated daily in the name of political correctness ("hate speech"?).”  I respectfully submit, your sense of violation in this context is self-inflicted.  Political Correctness (PC) is a societal induced form of peer pressure to impose the vocal groups sense of propriety.  I’m not aware of any legal restriction other than the common inciteful speech provisions.
            Re: “My 
2nd Amendment rights get breached all the time in the good old state of California.”  I’ve heard rumors of this nonsense, but I’ve not studied the law, if there is a law.  If there is a violation of the Constitution, challenge the damn law in court, as it should be done.
            Re: “highway checkpoint.”  We can have a good, hearty debate on this topic.  I do believe the common law jurisprudence recognizes the misty line here between individual privacy rights versus the common good.
            Re: “Cruz & Tea Party.”  As I have written, I may not agree with Cruz, but I defend his right to do what he feels appropriate within the law.  To my knowledge, he violated no law.  My stiffest criticism goes to the House leadership who allowed the fiasco to progress to the shutdown and potential debt default.  Shutdown the government and penalizing the rest of the world because they object to the PPACA is like Russian roulette with our head.
            Re: “much worse I bet than Snowden.”  Again, really?  Please give me an example or two.  I can understand and appreciate Snowden’s contention that operatives and agents inside the USG may have violated the Constitution, i.e., 4th Amendment; but, there are legal, proper means for challenging those actions without jeopardizing the national security of the United States.
            I think my targeting is spot on but not exclusive.
  “That’s just my opinion, but I could be wrong.”
Cheers,
Cap

From the same contributor but a different thread:
“The way I interpreted [his] response Cap, is that simply: Institutions become self-serving and can deviate outside the laws/Constitution. Look at Judge Andrew P. Napolitano's most recent opinion, which you read. There are certain principles I don't need to educate people as bright as you, and well studied as you, on, but they need to be black or white, very binary, and we're currently operating on the backside of the power curve.
“And as to my opinion that institutions become self-serving, that is the non-sinister version that those within the institutions given excessive power (CIA/NSA/FBI/etc.) can become abusive/dangerous to the very citizenry they are pledged to protect. What happens when they go to the dark side or become directed by elements that don't recognize our country's sovereignty, history or Constitution?”
My reply:
Darren,
            I think we all share concern for rogue agents and/or agencies given the enormously powerful tools currently available to the USG.  Where the threshold tolerable conduct and performance lays should remain a perpetual topic of public debate.  My concern remains reform or refinement of the IC to avoid broad general constraints like the Church Commission induced in the late 70’s.  We should be looking for ways to allow the IC as much range as possible while restricting the uses or application of the collected material, e.g., using intercepted communications of enforce morality (private conduct) principles.  We must focus our attention on proper objectives rather than taking the easy path as Congress did with the Church Commission findings.

A different contribution:
Subject: telephone furore
From: "Peter Gipson"
Date: Fri, October 25, 2013 12:53 pm
To: "'cap'"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

“How naïve of them ‘to think or not to think’ that this eavesdropping was not going on!
“The technology of listening to a radio communication even if one of those in the communication has some form of protection has been in practice for many a year. I believe that even you and I are occasionally ‘listened’ too. And why not? I have nothing to hide. This is pure political venting and squabbling. I have never heard such nonsense. I shall be pleased to see your views, which may be roughly aligned with my own. We shall see.”
My response:
Peter,
            I’m sure you know quite well what my views will be.
            As I have repeatedly said in a variety of fora, folks who are disturbed by signals intelligence should read a few books that detail the ULTRA and MAGIC programs 70 years ago, or even a few history books that document the enormous benefit of those programs to waging war successfully.  NSA & GCHQ have been listening to communications since their inception, and I hope they continue to do so for as long as there are bad men in this world.  I also hope they continue to refine and hone their skills as technology evolves.
            In fact, I believe eavesdropping as a legal term goes back to at least 1765 and Sir William Blackstone.  A lot of the public outcry is a paucity of understanding regarding signals intelligence (SigInt) and/or resentment they do not possess the capability and capacity of NSA & GCHQ.
            I think the best the professionals can do now is close the door, shutter the windows, and disappear . . . as they keep their governmental supervision informed.  I note with interest the congressional and parliamentary members charged with that supervision have remained largely silent or issued innocuous statements of defense.
            The furore will burn itself out eventually, although in this instance Snowden, his helpers and the collaborative Press are insuring a constant trickle, which I surmise may go on for quite some time.
“That’s just my opinion, but I could be wrong.”
Have a great weekend.
Cheers,
Cap
 . . . and a follow-up comment:
Subject: RE: telephone furore

From: "Peter Gipson"
Date: Fri, October 25, 2013 4:42 pm

To: cap@parlier.com

--------------------------------------------------------------------------


Cap, evening from a wet Suffolk with a severe gale pending.


“Yes of course I knew your views!




“We’re working up to Remembrance Sunday here. We have a very hectic couple of weeks with fund raising and the Poppy appeal. I have 5 school presentations to do and will speak to approximately 2000 youngsters. It’s quite brilliant and beneficial but tiring. I take a couple of WW2 veterans and one who served in Malaya. They have tragic memories.”
Peter.
 . . . my follow-up response:
Peter,
            The storm forecast for Southern England made the news here on the Great Plains.  I hope y’all weather the storm well.
            Always interesting to talk to veterans.  I hope the Poppy Appeal is amply successful this year.  Malayia was nasty business for Percival’s III Corps as well as the assets and population they protected.  Good luck.

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

Cap                        :-)

21 October 2013

Update no.618


Update from the Heartland
No.618
14.10.13 – 20.10.13
To all,

The follow-up news items:
-- At 00:30 [R] EDT, Thursday, 17.October.2013, President Obama signed into law the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2014 [PL 113-046; H.R.2775; House: 285-144-0-3(3); Senate: 81-18-0-1(0); 127 Stat. xxxx] just in the nick of time [615-17].  The law kicks the can down the road, since once again Congress proved unable to perform its constitutional duty on time, and extends the previously extended funding for a few months until 15.January.2014 and the debt limit until 7.February.2014, when we get to go through these convulsions all over again.
            The current Members of Congress being what they are – flawed men – could not resist spending (borrowing) even more money.  Buried in the legal language of PL 113-046 is §123 of Division A – Continuing Appropriations Act, 2014, which states in full,  “Section 3(a)(6) of Public Law 100-676 is amended by striking both occurrences of `$775,000,000' and inserting in lieu thereof, `$2,918,000,000'.”  Now, if I did not have the voracious curiosity of which I am plagued, I probably would not have thought much about §123.  This single line item adds US$2+B of NEW spending for which the federal government apparently has insufficient revenue, i.e., more borrowing, more debt.  Now, given the financial situation created by Congress, you would think this has to be really important, a near life-or-death matter.  Well, not so fast Kemosabe.  The amended law referred to in the §123 line item is the Water Resources Development Act of 1988 [PL 100-676; 102 Stat. 4012; 17.November.1988], §3(a)(6) of which authorizes dam and lock construction by the Army Corps of Engineers on the Lower Ohio River, between Illinois and Kentucky.  Now, who would be so interested and driven during this time of fiscal struggles to spend US$2+B more of precious, borrowed, Treasury funds?  Wait for it . . . wait for it . . . let’s see, isn’t Senate Minority Leader Addison Mitchell "Mitch" McConnell, Jr. from Kentucky?  What a coincidence!  McConnell’s office says the senator knew nothing of the funding increase for these water works.  Well, if not McConnell, could it be the junior Senator Randal Howard "Rand" Paul of Kentucky?  Likewise, his office says, “I know nut-ting!”  It seems no one wants to own up to spending two billion more new dollars.  What is worse, these two Republican senators love to throw crap at President Obama for his out of control spending.  In all fairness, the two senators from Kentucky may not have known that someone placed the two billion of unspecified funding in the continuing appropriations bill, and the assumed Dam & Lock, 52 & 53, Project may be a very worthy and necessary construction project for Ohio River commerce.  However, the timing of such spending has to be absolutely abysmal and an affront to all good citizens.  McConnell voted for the bill; Paul voted against it.  Both Senators Durbin and Kirk of Illinois voted for the bill.  As often attributed to the late Senator Everett McKinley Dirksen of Illinois, “A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon, you're talking real money.”  Oh what the hell, it is only another two billion dollars to feed the pork barrel of corrupt insanity that has become Congress.
-- The latest dribble from the Snowden betrayal [599] raises another interesting question. 
“Documents reveal NSA’s extensive involvement in targeted killing program”
by Greg Miller, Julie Tate and Barton Gellman
Washington Post
Published: October 16 [2013]
What purpose is served in such Press articles regarding stolen material that illuminates intelligence means and methods?
            “The Post is withholding many details about those missions, at the request of U.S. intelligence officials who cited potential damage to ongoing operations and national security.”  I laud the Post’s restraint, however I think the newspaper went too far, even in their withholding position.
            For those who understand and appreciate history, what do you think would have happened to a guy like Snowden, who betrayed the United States decryption of the Japanese JN-25 naval code (Purple) and the MAGIC signals intelligence program, or the decryption success of the Government Code and Cypher School (GCCS AKA Station X or Bletchley Park) [the forerunner of the British Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ)] with the German Enigma codes and the ULTRA signals intelligence program, 71 years ago?  For those who do not or cannot appreciate the consequences of such a disclosure during the dark days of World War II, I cannot possibly explain it in this humble forum.  MAGIC was the decisive difference in the Battle of Midway (4.June.1942).  ULTRA was the decisive difference in the 2nd Battle of El Alamein (23.October.1942).  Snowden’s treason has given al-Qa’ida and their affiliates extraordinary insight into how we wage war against them.  I suspect we will be less successful in the future.  I hope Snowden never gets a good night’s sleep until he is tried, convicted and punished for his crimes; he will never know when a bunch of men in black attire will visit him in the middle of the night.  He has betrayed today’s MAGIC and ULTRA programs; he must suffer the consequences of that treason.
            Would our military and political leaders 71 years ago felt better if it was only the messages that were disclosed?  Any modestly intelligent person can quickly deduce that certain messages had to come from decryption of the intercepted messages.  Both the Japanese and the Germans believed their codes were unbreakable.  Just a hint of possible compromise would have resulted in changes to the codes and a total loss of an incalculably valuable intelligence source.
            I am just as curious as the next guy.  I read the Miller article with attentive interest.  However, there are some things the public simply does not have a right to know . . . until the intelligence value of such information has evaporated.  Frankly, I think responsible members of the Press should quietly and anonymously assist the government when individuals seek to disclose highly classified intelligence material.  On the flip side, the Press cannot be an agent of the government.  The Press is a necessary check on government power and authority.  Yet, they are also citizens of this Grand Republic and freedom-loving peoples.
            The sad reality of Snowden’s treason remains the scale and depth of his betrayal, which means we are likely to suffer these dribbled disclosures for painfully extended time of highly classified material meant only to harm the government of this Grand Republic and our Allies.  Sure enough, Snowden was able to do what he did directly because of a stark failure of the intelligence and counter-intelligence apparati of the United States; they bear ultimate responsibility.

This whole World War II Memorial farce was political theater in the same vein as Senator’s Cruz’s lame filibuster demonstration.  The reason the Memorial was closed and fenced off was the park rangers who are tasked with protecting the solemnity of the site were on furlough because of Cruz and his ilk; those old veterans should be criticizing Cruz & his cronies rather than the park rangers or the administration.  What would folks say if the site was vandalized while unmanned; who would they blame for the senseless destruction?  Oh yeah, I forgot, everything is President Obama’s fault.  It is sad and unfortunate that some veterans succumb to the Siren’s Song, but I guess that is life.  Likewise, it is tragic to see a noble political party being held hostage by a radical minority faction.  And so it goes!

News from the economic front:
-- Fitch Ratings placed the AAA credit rating of the United States of America on watch for a downgrade, as Congress played Russian roulette with this Grand Republic's debt limit.  Congress pulled the trigger as noted above and the happenstance chamber was empty; lucky for us . . . this time.  This action comes after the Standard & Poor’s rating agency downgraded the U.S. sovereign debt from AAA to AA+ on 5.August.2011 [503] the last time we played this game.  Just an historic exclamation point to this nonsense: Congress also created this so-called debt limit with passage of the Second Liberty Bond Act of 1917 [PL 65-I-043; 40 Stat. 288; 24.September.1917] [502, 580], which imposed a debt limit of US$7.539B.  You know, now that I think of it, if I was a conspiracist, using the nation’s debt limit and consequent strength of the country’s currency would be a great way to seriously reduce our ability to protect our national interests worldwide.  A far more effective tool than the isolationist America Firsters used 75 years ago.  Perhaps that is what the Tea Party Republicans are really after.
-- The Labor Department said it would release September's employment report next week and the October employment report will be delayed one week due to the government shutdown.
-- The Wall Street Journal reported J.P. Morgan Chase has reached a tentative agreement of roughly US$4B to settle claims the bank misled mortgage-finance companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac about the quality of mortgages it sold to them during the housing boom.  According to the WSJ report, the amount is less than the US$6B initially sought by the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA).
-- Various news sources also reported J.P. Morgan Chase has reached a tentative US$13B deal with the Justice Department to settle a number of outstanding probes of its residential mortgage-backed securities business.  It is not clear whether this out-of –court settlement is in addition to or inclusive of the FHFA deal noted above.  The sad reality is even if the former, the total amount must be a mere fraction of the profits the bank made and more significantly the destruction wrought upon this Grand Republic and the world economy as a consequence of their greed.  This is hardly punishment, but it is better than nothing.

Comments and contributions from Update no.617:
“I was somewhat alarmed reading your account of 'so called whistle blowers' you have added FBI/CIA/NSA/DoJ after their names. Are you in fact saying that these individuals are or were former employees of your government?
“If this is indeed the case isn't there a fundamental issue with selection and continuous loyalty assessment of such personnel? I've always had the view that such incidents must be the responsibility not just of the character concerned but of those above him, the senior management. A case in question is the wrecking of the Costa Concordia. Plainly such a tragic breach in the Captain' responsibilities to his passengers crew and company made him an unacceptable risk to employ in such a job. Why wasn't these traits spotted earlier, in the selection process possibly? Do we in fact look deep enough into these people's mind set? Should we be doing a continuous 'risk assessment' on their attitudes to authority and government?”
My response:
            Yes, they were USG employees.  In American parlance, a whistleblower is a person that exposes criminal or unethical conduct by a government employee or agency, or within industry.  Drake violated the law and went to prison for his crimes.  Crowley and Radack did not handle their revelations well, but I’m not aware of any law-breaking.  I don’t know that much about McGovern; however, his endorsement of Assange pretty well says it for me.  None of them even came close to the scale and depth of betrayal as Snowden.  I doubt convicted traitors like Hanssen, Ames, Walker, or even Fuchs, Hall or the Rosenbergs disclosed as much classified material as Snowden has done.
            Back in my day, the FBI did the background checks for security clearances.  Post-9/11, I guess the FBI agents are too busy tracking down terrorists to do such mundane tasks as background checks.  Reliance on for-profit contractors as was the case with Snowden, it is recipe for what happened with Snowden.
            Yes, there are failures at many levels with guys like Snowden.  There are signs, if we just paid attention to them.  It is one of the traits I think MI5 does quite well . . . look for signs and quietly & gradually focus on bad apples.  We need an agency with the capabilities of MI5 and we also need an Official Secrets Act [2 & 3 Geo. 6 c. 121].  Yes, I think we should be doing constant risk assessments and we need an intelligence apparatus like MI5 to develop the picture from the dots hopefully before a guy like Snowden can do what he did.  I’m convinced there were signs; the supposedly cognizant people did not look or did not note the signs.
 . . . a follow-up comment:
“I wasn't aware that you didn't have an equivalent to the Official Secrets Act. My limited knowledge of your history tells me that the Rosenbergs went to the gallows for their crime as indeed we would in times of war. However if your justice system gets a hand on Snowden I assume 30 years would be about right.
“Even now after 17 years since my discharge I'm careful just what I can say. And that my friend is how it must be.  Loyalty to one's country and to the democratic system we both have defended demand it.”
 . . . and my follow-up response:
            Nope; I wish.  The key difference is the OSA enjoins the Press from knowingly publishing classified material.  Our classification systems work primarily at the source; once the information gets to the Press, all bets are off -- the Daniel Ellsberg case being a notorious example.
            The figurative gallows for the Rosenbergs; I think they were executed by electrocution, not that it really matters.  They were just as much traitors as Lord Haw-Haw.  I think Snowden has done far more damage to the national security of this Grand Republic as well as the United Kingdom and Germany than anyone else I can think of or know about.  In that context, 30 years confinement is not enough.  We don’t execute traitors these days but we should.  I think someone is going to get him, just as I have confidence someone will get Assange; it is only a matter of time.
            I share your sense of loyalty.  I was given the privilege of access to highly sensitive material for which I am grateful.  I’ll be damned if I will be a source for anyone, at any time.

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

14 October 2013

Update no.617


Update from the Heartland
No.617
7.10.13 – 13.10.13
To all,

The follow-up news items:
-- There was no visible movement in the passage of H.J. Res. 59 – the continuing appropriations bill [615, 616].  The federal government (USG) remains selectively closed, except for entitlements, and selective funding or promises to favored segments.  There have been some discussions about a short-term, six-week extension of the debt ceiling.  The Tea Party minority faction of the Republican Party decided to make the PPACA their focus and hold the USG hostage since they failed to prevent the original passage and failed in the Judiciary review as well.  Again, the stress and uncertainty belongs to the House majority leadership, but now they must save face.  Those representatives in the House who brought We, the People, to this place will not feel the pain they are inflicting on the rest of us but they should.
-- As noted in the Comments Section, the funding of the USG and the existence of the PPACA are separate issues.  A number of Republican representatives have suggested a compromise to PPACA [432, 512, 553] for “opt-in” rather than “opt-out.”  Toward the objective of PPACA, I do not see the difference; both options would allow individuals to remain outside the health care system.  Neither will work unless we can ensure they will NOT become an uncollectible expense to the medical system.  As I have voiced my opinion previously [616], I would support an “opt-out” choice, and I will also throw in the “opt-in” approach as well, if and only if, there are provisions to ensure those individuals choosing to remain outside the PPACA objective are not allowed to seek medical treatment without paying in cash in advance.  Without such provisions, neither option will work and would ultimately destine PPACA to failure.  I appreciate the desire for choice, but we are well past the threshold of ridiculous tolerance.  We have got to reduce the overhead costs of uncollectible debt attached to every medical service dollar spent.  I simply do NOT understand why it is so hard for those Tea Party Republicans to appreciate we are paying for the uninsured who seek medical treatment and there are American citizens who do not seek medical treatment when they should because they do not have a means to pay for the treatment they need.  Once again, I must say, PPACA is certainly not perfect; it has plenty of flaws; but, it has a worthy objective.  Let us make it better rather than hobbling it or trying to kill it.
-- Four American so-called “whistleblowers” traveled to Moscow to meet with Edward Snowden [599], his first visitors since he was granted temporary asylum by Russia in August. The group was composed of prominent whistleblower advocates, including Coleen Rowley (FBI), Jesselyn Alicia Radack née Brown (DoJ) [340. 343], Thomas Andrews Drake (NSA) [436, 492], and Raymond “Ray” McGovern (CIA), who presented Snowden with an award for truth-telling.  So, I guess the message is there is no such thing as secret information.  Sources will not want their information on the Web, so let see how long we can collect valuable intelligence information without human sources.

In an interesting punctuation on the Snowden visitors above, Director-General Andrew Parker of the Security Service (MI5) publicly condemned intelligence leaks and the associated Press coverage regarding how the intelligence agencies intercept voice and internet communications as a “gift” to terrorists, and causing “enormous damage” to the fight against jihadists.

Then, we have this interesting and relevant Press perspective:
“Edward Snowden, MI5, The Guardian: who are the bad guys? – States must be able to spy on terrorists – the new head of MI5, Andrew Parker, is right to point out that to do so requires secrecy”
by Alan Judd
The Telegraph [of London]
Published: 09 Oct 2013; 8:33PM BST

In a comparable message, the Director of the National Security Agency (DIRNSA) General Keith Brian Alexander, USA [USMA 1974] made the public portion of his case against restrictions on the NSA’s surveillance capability.
“N.S.A. Director Gives Firm and Broad Defense of Surveillance Efforts
by David E. Sanger and Thom Shanker
New York Times
Published: October 12, 2013
We need to pay attention to the professionals who protect us, like Parker and Alexander, as we grapple with the thresholds of our fundamental right to privacy.  At the end of the day, we cannot allow terrorists and those who would harm us to hide behind the Constitution.

News from the economic front:
-- Various Press reports indicate there are tense negotiations inside the Federal Reserve as the central bank struggles with a U.S. economy still showing signs of weakness and faced with new risks on the horizon.  The Fed still maintains their intention to wind down their US$85B-per-month bond-buying program by year end.

London Inter-Bank Offered Rate (LIBOR) Debacle [552]:
-- Well, it looks like we might actually have a contest before us in the LIBOR debacle.  Thomas “Tom” Hayes [574, 576], the former UBS and Citigroup trader accused of orchestrating a scheme to manipulate interest rates, appears to be gearing up for a fight. He faces criminal fraud charges in the U.S. and U.K.  The Wall Street Journal reported that Hayes has dismissed the London law firm that had been representing him as he cooperated with the U.K.’s Serious Fraud Office over the past several months, and has hired a pair of high-profile U.K. lawyers with reputations for mounting aggressive defenses in financial-fraud cases.  If the case goes to trial, we should learn more about how this scandal occurred.
-- So we don’t lose focus . . . the infamous 16, involved, international banks are:
·      Barclays [UK] – US$454M fine [550]; Singapore sanctions [600]
·      Bank of America [U.S.] – Singapore sanctions [600]
·      BTMU [Japan] – Singapore sanctions [600]
·      Citigroup [U.S.] – Singapore sanctions [600]
·      Credit Suisse [Switzerland] – Singapore sanctions [600]
·      Deutsche Bank [Germany] US$654M LIBOR profit [578]; set aside €500M (US$641M) for LIBOR liability [589]; Singapore sanctions [600]
·      Lloyds TSB [UK]
·      HSBC [UK] – Singapore sanctions [600]
·      HBOS [UK]
·      JPMorgan Chase [U.S.] – Singapore sanctions [600]
·      Norinchuckin [Japan]
·      Rabobank [Netherlands]
·      RBC [Canada]
·      RBS [UK] – £390M (US$612.6M) in fines, 21 employees involved [582]; Singapore sanctions [600]
·      UBS [Switzerland] – US$1.5B fine, two charged [575]; Singapore sanctions [600]
·      West LB [Germany]
Added to the list by the Monetary Authority of Singapore [600]:
·      ING [Netherlands] Singapore sanctions [600]
·      BNP Paribas [France] Singapore sanctions [600]
·      Crédit Agricole [France] Singapore sanctions [600]
·      DBS [Singapore] Singapore sanctions [600]
·      Oversea-Chinese Banking Corporation [Singapore] Singapore sanctions [600]
·      Standard Chartered [UK] Singapore sanctions [600]
·      United Overseas Bank [Singapore] Singapore sanctions [600]
·      Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd. [Australia] Singapore sanctions [600]
·      Macquarie [Australia] Singapore sanctions [600]
·      Commerzbank [Germany] Singapore sanctions [600]
Others involved:
·      ICAP [UK] fined US$87M + three executives charged [615]
I trust none of us will lose sight of what these banks have done.  Lest we forget!

Comments and contributions from Update no.616:
Comment to the Blog:
“I know nobody who is willing to defend either political party in the government shutdown. I keep hearing recommendations that they all grow up, but that day is not coming soon enough. Personally, I am out of sympathy for the Tea Party. I have come to see them as the biggest bunch of babies Americans have somehow elected since at least Reconstruction. The Democrats are not the aggressors here, but they have not had a backbone among them for quite some time, and Obama is a far bigger disappointment to me than Carter. (Clinton was basically his own creature. Most of his accomplishments were stolen Republican issues.)
“I see PPACA as a separate issue. The Tea Party has tried to overturn that law around 40 times with no success. “Sore losers” is too kind a description for them.
“As far as giving people an out if they agree to pay cash “up front” for medical treatments, I expect that human nature would defeat that one because medical people would be unwilling to let large numbers of people die because they fail to think rationally.
“The Republican Party, as with the Democratic Party as well as the Whigs and the Federalists before them, has done what brought votes to its candidates. After all, the Tea Party aroused emotions that brought the Republicans votes. The fact that the votes now seem to be lost in the face of reality did not concern Republican leadership until it became blindingly obvious. The notion that political parties act from moral motivations and/or foresight is not quite as unsound as believing that corporations have those things but still will not serve as a predictor of their actions.
“Mr. Justice Thomas’s racist and irrational argument (“the protections harm those they protect”) in the 14th Amendment case bolsters the case for him as the most embarrassing Justice of our time. I have no idea why he remains silent most of the time and I do not know why his conflicts of interest have not been pursued by others, but he should make good entertainment for future generations of legal scholars.
“Christine Legarde works for the International Monetary Fund. She could hardly avoid making some statement about our political self-destruction, and there is nothing positive she could say about the debt ceiling issue without becoming an international laughingstock on the scale of Rand Paul.”
My response to the Blog:
            We, the People, vote these yayhoos into office.  Imagine the statement we would make if we voted every last one of them out of office.  Oh my, I’m quite the opposite re: Obama v. Carter.
            Re: PPACA.  The mindlessness of Tea Party Republicans is political parochialism at its worst; it just happens to be their focus, i.e., against anything and everything President Obama has done.  As I’ve said before, I have my concerns and misgivings regarding PPACA.  The genesis and codification were rushed through Congress in less than two years, when the Democrats controlled both the political branches & chambers.  I believe in that rush they hatched some premature concepts that may not work.  The influence of the insurance companies on the process should be a concern to all of us.  Yet, as I said, the objective was good and noble.  I would be far more supportive of the Republican initiatives, if they offered ideas for improvement rather than this foolish “let’s kill the whole thing” nonsense, made even more stupid by their use of blackmail and extortion to achieve their political aim.
            Re: opt out.  Yes, of course, you are correct.  The medical profession works under the Hippocratic Oath, and it says nothing about money or the ability to pay.  OK, so my tongue-in-cheek solution is a non-starter.  I do not wish to opt out.  Medical & dental insurance (through my employer – military & commercial) has served me well.  That is exactly the PPACA model, which is precisely why I have no fundamental objection to PPACA.  Yet, I can also understand why some folks do in fact object to being told they must obtain medical insurance coverage.  The Tea Party Republicans should be concentrating their energies on solving that part of the problem rather than attempting to kill PPACA for everyone.
            Before condemning Justice Thomas’ reasoning in Fisher, I would suggest you read all of his concurring opinion, at least.  He makes a reasoned and compelling case that reverse discrimination is discrimination of another color and inconsistent with the Constitution.  My concluding question in last week’s Update was not rhetorical; it was serious.  At what threshold of diminished racism is affirmative action no longer necessary?
            Re: “Legarde’s statement.”  Yes, of course.  Although this current debacle is a purely political issue, not economic or financial, the outcome could have profound economic impact on the entire World economy, thus her concern.  The Tea Party Republicans may not give a damn about the economic impact on the rest of the World, but I am fairly certain their investment advisers are.

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