Update no.621

Update from the Heartland

No.621

4.11.13 – 10.11.13

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

To all,

Happy Birthday, Marines . . . 238 years of glorious service to this Grand Republic.  On the 10^th of November, 1775, the Second Continental Congress passed a law, “That two Battalions of Marines be raised . . . .”  Recruitment began promptly at Tun Tavern near the Philadelphia docks.  Through those years, there have been many attempts to dissolve, absorb, disperse and otherwise diminish the United States Marine Corps.  While the Declaration of Independence had not yet been written, adopted and promulgated, the Revolutionary War had begun early that April.  Marines have served in every conflict this nation faced and in many other instances when called upon to serve the national interests.  Whether the Marine Corps survives, the history of Marines will endure for as long as we tell their stories.  Semper Fidelis!

Commandant’s message:

https://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/birthday13

Independent Tributes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=qQvPTrMvJwk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcL3tNjN5Fc

We celebrate the service of all veterans – past, present and future – in the defense of freedom. In the United States, we call it Veterans Day.  In the United Kingdom, it is Remembrance Day –the 11^th day of November – Armistice Day for the War to End All Wars.  May God bless all those who have served.

While working on an impending history book, I researched the wartime exploits of one of my ancestors, which in turn led me into an intriguing thread to extend my paternal ancestral history beyond the limits I had previously known.  My Great Great Grandfather Isaac Newton Parlier, Jr., (known as I.N.) was born on 22.October.1842, in Illinois. I.N. married Mary Melissa Laird on 15.November.1863, in Jefferson County, Illinois, and enlisted in the Union Army on 9.February.1865, in McLean County. He served in the Western Campaign during the Civil War (or the War between the States, depending on your preference) as a private in the 152^nd Illinois Volunteer Infantry Regiment.  After the war, I.N. moved his family to the Central Valley of California in 1874.  My Great Grandfather and the youngest son of I.N., Charles Allen Parlier, for whom I am named, was born in 1866 in Illinois.  Documentation now publicly available allowed me to trace my paternal lineage beyond I.N.’s father to Jean Perlier of La Tremblade, France, on the Atlantic coast between La Rochelle and Bordeaux.  Perlier family were Protestants, known as Huguenots.  They were severely persecuted during the 17^th century by a very Catholic and intolerant nation.  Shortly after Jean’s passing, his widow Marie and their two sons, Jean and Andre, were smuggled out of France by Marie’s father, a merchant-shipping owner.  Marie and her two boys arrived in New York City in 1686.  Jean was declared a freeman in 1695, in New York City at age 26.  Jean and his descendants began their western migration through North Carolina, Kentucky and Illinois.  The family name underwent a metamorphosis as well – Perlier, Purlee, Purlier, Parlee, and finally the current anglicized Parlier.  This is the short version . . . quite a lot of recent discovery, I must say.  Yet, there is so much more to learn.

A personal medical update for those who may be concerned or interested . . .  A year after surgery, my PSA began rising ever so slightly; the value remained quite low but doubled in six months.  With the professional counsel of my urologist and oncologist, I began radiation and hormone therapy to deal with residual Prostatic Adenocarcinoma (PCa) cells that probably leaked out during biopsy and/or radical prostatectomy and are likely in the connective tissue in the vicinity of where my prostate used to be.  The docs say, given my state, I have a 50% shot at a cure with radiation + ADT (Androgen Deprivation Therapy), meaning disease-free for the rest of my life.  I get zapped at the same time every day, five (5) days per week, for six (6) weeks.  As of this writing, I am 10% through the process.  The side-effect symptoms are just beginning and will get worse, before they improve.  There ya have it . . . an update on my medical condition.

The Senate passed S. 815, known as the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) [Senate: 64-32-0-4(0)], to seriously restrict discrimination in the workplace based on sexual orientation or identity.  Supporters of non-heterosexual rights hailed the historic vote, 17-years after a similar measure failed by one vote.  The Speaker of the House pronounced the Senate bill dead on arrival.  The phenomenon remains absolutely baffling to me.  How does a substantial chunk of the citizens of this Grand Republic, who publicly profess their unwavering commitment to freedom, justify discriminating against a minority fraction of our population based on their perception of personal, private matters that have absolutely nothing to do with job performance.  The contradiction and dichotomy brilliantly illuminate our failure to achieve the most basic of our founding principles – every citizen is endowed by our Creator “with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”  Private matters are for God to judge, not us!  Freedom for all!

Perhaps the moderates among the American electorate are mobilizing to dampen the extremes of the political parties.  We can only hope.  Next year’s congressional elections should tell the tale.  Moderate Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey won handily in a fairly blue state.  Radical Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli of Virginia lost in his bid to become governor.  Colorado voters rejected an excessive tax on marijuana sales and also rejected a bid by conservative, northeastern counties to secede and form a new state.  Coincident with the off-year election, the Illinois became the 15^th state to approve and recognized non-heterosexual marriage.  Quite the outcome for moderates, I must say.  Unfortunately, I doubt the extremists will get the message.

Apparently, the Germans are having some difficulty understanding the United States of America.

“Paradise Lost: Paranoia Has Undermined U.S. Democracy”

by Dirk Kurbjuweit

Der Spiegel

Published: November 08, 2013 – 04:54 PM

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/paranoia-has-undermined-united-states-claim-to-liberal-democracy-a-932326.html

Using the fictitious television series “Homeland” as a reflection of American instability, Kurbjuweit apparently feels comfortable diagnosing the United States with a collective paranoia and acting in an irrational manner.  There are so many facets of his article that I disagree with.  Like all free peoples, the Germans are entitled to their opinions.  I would simply urge Kurbjuweit and others to study the complexity of the intelligence process.  Frankly, I think “Homeland” gives us a good view of the difficulty, uncertainty, ambiguity and downright ugliness of Human Intelligence (HumInt), both from the operational perspective as well as the personal dimension, as we are all flawed human beings.  As I read Kurbjuweit’s article, I see a person who neither understands Americans nor the intelligence process.

A letter to the editor of the Wichita Eagle caught my attention.

“Simple principles permit freedom”

by Bob Love of Wichita – Letter to the Editor

Wichita Eagle

Published: 7.November.2013

http://www.kansas.com/2013/11/07/3100807/letters-to-the-editor-on-not-compromising.html

“The continuous media blather about splits in the Republican Party between those with principles and those without them (a supposedly laudable willingness to continuously compromise their “principles”) shows how lost the American conscience has become and how clueless it is when it comes to freedom.

“Talk to the heads of enough households (and family counselors) and you will quickly discover that their primary job is not ‘ordering the lives’ of their members but rather ‘keeping order’ so that the lives of their members can unfold according to individual motivations and desires. Is this done with a cradle-to-grave bureaucracy of rules, regulations and manipulations suspended in continuous redefinition through compromise as needs and opportunities change? No.

“Successful households run on a few simple and inviolable principles that have stood the test of time and on which one can rely. This atmosphere strengthens individual freedom and cultivates personal responsibility among all the members, which makes the family stronger, not weaker.

“I am so tired of the empty talk from people who think that compromise somehow strengthens social bonds. Listening is good and thinking is good, and even changing your mind is OK. But all compromise does is breed contempt for principles. People (especially immature people) need a few simple, rigid principles if they are to grow in freedom and responsibility.”

My consequent letter to the editor:

Re: Bob Love (Wichita) opinion “Simple principles permit freedom,” published: 7.November.2013

            Any relationship of human beings from two (2) to millions demands listening, debate, negotiation and compromise.  Yes, principles are essential, as they form the basis of debate and negotiation.  Yet, the implication that compromise is a dirty word, to be shunned by anyone with even a modicum of principle, belies respect for others and freedom itself.  Intransigence whether based on principle or whim renders any relationship, at any level from personal, familial or national, virtually impossible and renders us just a clump of individuals.  Democracy requires debate and compromise to achieve a degree of balance and stability for the common good.

            Conversely, as Love alludes, compromise to the extent of abandoning principles becomes a liquification of our structure.  So, we must find a balance point . . . sufficient compromise to enable progress, maintain stability, and encourage innovation, while standing up for the principles we hold dear.  At the end of the day, principle cannot be an excuse for intransigence.

            The Love opinion smacks of paternalism from the days of coverture.  Surely, we have matured beyond those notions of male superiority.

            “That’s just my opinion, but I could be wrong.”

News from the economic front:

-- SAC Capital Advisors plead guilty to every count of an insider-trading indictment and may pay as much as US$1.8B in penalties.  It would be the largest amount ever for insider trading.  The judge in the case announced she will not decide the penalty until March of next year.  SAC indicated six employees were involved.  It is not clear whether the plea deal will preclude criminal charges and penalties against those involved.

-- The European Commission lowered its growth forecast for the Eurozone to an anemic 1.1% next year.

-- The governing council of the European Central Bank (ECB) unexpectedly cut its main interest rate to 0.25% from 0.5%, and slashed its emergency lending facility by 25 basis points to 0.75%.  The ECB action reflects heightened concerns for the Eurozone's lackluster economic recovery.

-- The Commerce Department reported the U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) grew at an annual rate of 2.8% in 3Q2013, up from the 2.5% growth in 2Q2013.

-- The Labor Department reported that U.S. payrolls increased by 204,000 jobs in October – well above economists’ forecast. The nation's unemployment rate rose slightly to 7.3% from 7.2% in September, as more citizens sought employment.  The rising GDP and employment may give the Federal Reserve sufficient evidence to begin pulling back its monetary easing policies.

-- Standard & Poor's lowered France's credit rating by one notch to AA, which will further complicate the country’s efforts to turn around the Eurozone's second-largest economy.

Comments and contributions from Update no.620:

Comment to the Blog:

“Cap, I see a contradiction in that you believe Snowden's information should remain secret but at the same time you want to verify it.

“Also, I do not understand how you reconcile keeping the collecting and use of personal information about Americans not accused of crimes secret if it is attributed to ‘the national interest’ but not if the information is openly used to suppress civil rights or to pursue personal vendettas. So long as secrecy and the lack of accountability continue, it matters not a whit what excuse the perpetrators give. I have to assume that you trust the government's stories about their targets and the targets' deeds, but I dislike the idea that you would be so foolish given the history of the spy community. That history includes the Watergate abuses but is by no means limited to that incident. People back to the beginning of time have proven that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

“Your suspicions of the Guardian match mine of anything touched by Rupert Murdoch, the Australian who controls too much the U.S. news scene by way of Fox News.

“I was unable to access the article that I presume discusses term limits due to an ad that would not close. Term limits sound ‘instinctively’ good so long as we assume that new office-holders are less corrupt, as a group, than those who have already held office for years. That assumption needs much more testing, but even if it proves true another issue arises. Whether or not newly elected officials are more honest, by definition they have less experience. That leaves them vulnerable to the likes of Grover Norquist, Karl Rove, and other manipulators who need not seek election. New Senators and Representatives are also more vulnerable because they face a higher risk of not being elected or re-elected (assuming term limits allow a second term) than more established politicians, thus strengthening the influence of campaign contributors that we agree already have too much pull in DC.

“You did not make clear at all whom you expect to ‘vote in unison’ or what you expect the ‘next revolution’ to encompass. Much more clarity would be necessary to a coherent discussion.”

My response to the Blog:

            Re: contradiction.  If the Snowden “documents” had not already been released, I would agree; however, they have purportedly been released to the Press.  On an issue this important, I do not trust the Press to make those judgments for me.  Nonetheless, aside from the legality, I was simply confessing my curiosity to read the actual words and try to place such documents into context.  At the end of the day, I do NOT have a “need to know” such classified information and neither does the public, thus my contention they should have remained as far from public scrutiny as possible.

            Re: intelligence.  Let us use an illustrative example.  Elliott Spitzer was hardly the first politician to avail himself of the services of a professional; yet, he was pilloried by the politicos of the opposing party that happened to have access to the warrantless surveillance data.  The data collected had absolutely nothing to do with the War on Islamic Fascism; however, it was dynamite in the political arena.  Some Bush administration hack got access to it and convinced Spitzer to self-immolate himself.  To me, it is a classic example of why we need filtration between the IC and the politicos.  The IC would not have wasted another minute on such trivial, meaningless information.  They have enough on their plates as it is.  It was not the collection that violated Spitzer’s fundamental right to privacy, it was the politicos who decided to use it for political purposes rather than as intended.  In the intelligence biz, you just never know when an innocuous, miniscule factoid will provide enormous clarity to events at hand.  I do not want the IC restricted from irrelevant information, because they just might find important relevance.  I think the appropriate restriction is on access and use of IC information.  In the Spitzer case, whomever leaked that information should have been prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, and I would enthusiastically support expanding criminal sanctions against those who abuse intelligence information.

            Re: news media.  Agreed.  However, with the preponderance of the Press leaning well into the liberal end of the spectrum, we need Fox News to at least make an attempt at balance.

            Re: article.  I presume you are referring to the Sowell article.  If so, not sure why; it is a public document now.  Would you like me to send the text to you?

            Re: “vote in unison.”  I was referring to the majority of voters in each congressional district choosing to vote out an incumbent and vote in someone more trustworthy.  Yes, of course, the new guy may well be less trustworthy, but he will only have two years to enrich himself as opposed to 30-40 years.  I place the likes of Norquist, Rove, Soros, et al in the category of lobbyists . . . for their political causes.

            Re: “next revolution.”  As we continue to anoint and accept the monied elite as our new nobility with their royal prerogative and their consequent corrosive influence on weak politicians, I see us moving closer and closer to taxation without representation – an essential catalyst for the last revolution.

 . . . follow-up contribution:

“You seem to think that spies would meet a higher moral standard than politicians, whose standard appears to both of us to be lower than ordinary people's. How do you support the idea that spies have any moral values?

“I have lost track of which article is which.

“I find it difficult to imagine a majority of incumbents losing their positions through election losses. People do not vote anti-establishment in numbers like that. History says no, and I see it as a good thing. The likes of Karl Rove and Grover Norquist are not lobbyists in any sense of the word. They are party officials or others in a position to operate politicians directly, without the outsider situation in which any lobbyist must act.

“That ‘next revolution’ stuff sounds rather like the hope of an armed insurrection, a strange idea indeed coming from one who supports the government's monitoring of anyone and everyone it chooses. I do not support such an insurrection, for the same reason so many did not support the American Revolution and so many others before and since. I want to go on with my life much more than I want to give my life to change the government.”

 . . . my follow-up response:

            Re: spies.  For better or worse, I have a few friends who are members of the IC.  Over the years, I have come in contact with quite a few more.  They are honorable, courageous, dedicated, patriotic Americans.  If we say spies have no moral values, then none of us have any moral values.  They are extraordinary citizens, performing a very difficult and demanding task, with virtually no recognition, reward or acclaim.  I cannot accept your premise.

            Re: article.  I believe you were referring to the Thomas Sowell article titled: “Throw the Rascals Out?”

            Re: incumbents.  You speak of reality.  I speak of idealistic day-dreaming.  I suppose corruption is a fact of life . . . like lying, cheating, and such.

            Re: lobbyists.  I included political hacks like Rove & Norquist in the lobbyist category simply from the perspective of corrupting influence.

            Re: next revolution.  Quite the contrary, I am not hoping for an armed insurrection of any shape or form.  I am simply reflecting that the politicos can only abuse We, the People, so long before we take matters into our own hands by whatever means available.  As Jefferson said, “Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.”  It is as true today as was when written 237 years ago.  The question before us is, how long will the obscenity that Congress has become, remain sufferable?

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

Cheers,

Cap                 :-)