29 December 2014

Update no.680

Update from the Heartland
No.680
22.12.14 – 28.12.14
To all,

Happy New Year to everyone!  May next year be the best ever for each of you.

The follow-up news items:
-- Sony Pictures Entertainment released their controversial movie “The Interview” to 300 independent theater screens and reportedly made a deal to also release the movie to video streaming sites in the wake of the major cyber-attack [679].  Naturally, as is so common in the digital age, the conspiracists have accused Sony of intentionally provoking Kim Jung Un and the DPRK to generate massive ‘news’ publicity and stimulate a patriotic response to the movie.  I am not among that group.  Aaron Sorkin’s admonition of the Press regarding some aspects of the cyber-attack [679] generated alternative opinion (see Comments section below).

At 05:35 [G], Sunday, 28.December.2014, AirAsia Flight 8501 (QZ8501) took off from Surabaya airport Indonesia on a planned two-hour flight to Singapore.  Communications with the aircraft were lost 42 minutes after takeoff.  Towering monsoon cumulonimbus cloud formations were present along their planned route.  The aircraft was an Airbus A320-200 with 162 souls aboard.  Search and rescue operations are underway, although primary search operations have been suspended for local nighttime.  This event comes less than a year after the disappearance of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 [638; 8.3.2014] in the same region.

OK, my bad!  In Update no.679, I noted the ridiculous number of federal facility naming laws Congress passed and President Obama approved.  Well, apparently, those were the easy ones, and the Library of Congress was struggling to keep up with the clot of new laws the President signed before departing on his winter holiday vacation.  By the end of this week, 61 additional legislative actions became laws.  Sure, there was a passel more facility naming laws and some rather trivial laws, yet there were also a few more substantive and important laws as well.  Congress actually passed two proper appropriations bills – one for the Defense Department and the other for the Intelligence Community – although the latter included a section they felt obligated to add: §302, excluding any intelligence activities “not otherwise authorized by the Constitution or the laws of the United States.”  This group of new laws also included three (3) cybersecurity and information security laws (quite timely given the DPRK’s recent attacks), a law adding more sanctions against Russia for their incursion into the Ukraine as well as other support for the Ukraine, and a law transferring six (6) Perry-class guided missile frigates from U.S. service to other countries – two to Mexico and four to Taiwan – reminiscent of the transfer of 40 destroyers to Great Britain in 1940, except the latter was accomplished by executive order rather than by an act of Congress.

News from the economic front:
-- The Commerce Department reported the U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) grew at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 5.0% in 3Q2014, up from a growth rate of 4.6% in 2Q2014, and the strongest pace since 3Q2003.  I think it is safe to say the U.S. economic recovery is for real; however, we need the rest of the world well into recovery also.

Comments and contributions from Update no.679:
Comment to the Blog:
“If we must talk in terms of moral outrage, I will first note that moral outrage often disguises a profit motive, a need for attention, or some attempt to control others. Sometimes all three.
“That said, legitimate moral outrage does have its moments. If someone made a movie and publicized it widely, solely for profit, about killing me personally, I would have one of those moments. My initial reaction would be obvious and large, and I would spend a great deal of time and energy bringing the perpetrators their consequences. I would expect no less of any rational human being. While we may not see Kim Jong Un as rational, he has reacted in moral outrage to a movie specifically about killing him. Of course he has. Like it or not, he does not see himself as some sort of arch-villain. Nobody sees himself that way. Expecting him to act within the context of law or middle-class U.S. morality contradicts his history. Being himself, if he has seen spy movies, his response probably makes perfect sense to him.
“I easily disproved your statement that theaters did not refuse to show that movie Interview in large numbers. http://www.mediaite.com/online/the-top-five-movie-theater-chains-in-north-america-wont-screen-the-interview/ (Search terms: movie theater interview) The five largest movie theater chains in North America had withdrawn from showing it before Sony gave up. At least one more in the top ten had joined them. Let us remember that Sony is a Japanese corporation. It would be reasonable for them to withdraw as soon as the movie cost them money. Why would they spend money defending the U.S. concept of freedom of speech? Defending US ideals is a job for the US government.
“Mr Sorkin's denunciation of the media for reporting items that are not illegal or (according to the claim) immoral might ring true if he did not work for an industry that goes to great effort to court media attention. “The press” is a collection of corporations. They are in business to make money. If this one time the attention is unwelcome, so what?
“Normalization of relations with Cuba will probably be President Obama's best achievement in the long view of history. For over 50 years, we have succeeded in damaging Cubans while failing to bend the Cuban government to our will. President Kennedy's mistake has cost us much material effort and international goodwill, and has cost the Cuban people a great deal more. Obama is finally changing that. While not on the scale of Nixon's outreach to China, he still makes a statement that making peace works better than causing conflict. If he could do something that sane in the Middle East, he would be a great man.
“Economic reporting remains confusing as ever.”
My response to the Blog:
            Re: moral outrage.  Interesting perspective.
            Re: Supreme Dear Leader Umpa-Lumpa.  You are a private citizen.  Kim is the leader of the DPRK and has the instruments of State under his control.  There is a monumental difference.  As with all positions of power, they are no longer private citizens, they represent the organizations they lead.  Plus, it’s a freakin’ comedic parody, not a special operations plan.  If he wants to protest as a human being, then fine; do so . . . but he does not get to use the instruments of State to action his tantrums.
            Re: disproved theaters.  Wow, that is quite a stretch.  Five theater chains hardly represent all theaters nationwide.  I believe I did say a handful of theater chains in the Northeast.  Let us not forget, the cinematic showing is the very tail end of the complete creative process; thus, the vast majority of investment costs have been spent.  Any income would be better than none.
            Re: Sorkin.  We are all entitled to our opinions.  I think he is the perfect voice for this issue.  To your point, that is precisely why I said Sorkin did not go far enough . . . as We, the People, read, listen to, and demand the drivel the Press feeds us.
            Re: Cuba.  You may well be correct on that one.  Normalization with the PRC was one of President Nixon’s major achievements.
            Re: Middle East.  Indeed!
            Re: economic reporting.  Quite so!  An imprecise process!
 . . . follow-up comment:
“My opinion of moral outrage is not new or original. Whether we call it moral outrage, rabble rousing, or some other name, one of the earlier stages of intellectual growth is recognizing that people often use their and others' emotions, especially anger and fear, for material gain and personal satisfaction. The next stage is recognizing when those emotions are in play and ignoring or discounting them unless they have very sound factual and moral underpinnings.
“I rarely engage in name calling, and it bothers me when you do. I see name calling as the province of bullies and drunks, not of intellectual leaders. See also “rabble rousing” above.
“I think we may safely assume that Kim Jung Un feels human emotions. Essentially all leaders have done the same. The idea that a person “represents the nation” (or corporation or agency) at all times in all circumstances fails the reality test. It is an ideal at best. Nixon returns to mind in this circumstance. He supervised the crimes of Watergate and attempted to add the FBI and CIA to them despite having every chance of being re-elected without that. That Kim represents a sovereign nation is an interesting circumstance, the result of North Korea having achieved dynastic succession despite calling itself a Communist nation. Cuba apparently has done the same, albeit with less disastrous results.
“The flaw in my argument was that it was premature. Doubt has been raised by credible sources about whether the North Korean government actually committed the hacking. If not, the situation probably calls for criminal law. I suppose that we must admit that Sony Pictures and to some degree the United States government are not ready for the 21st Century. Criminal law enforcement and the courts are not prepared to deal with this.
“Your statement about a “handful of theaters” is indeed disproven. My information concerned the five largest theater chains in North America, and more beyond them. That is at least 20,000 screens. That level of logistical changes alone would at least delay an opening.
“This too has since changed. Sony has now released the movie to 300 screens in the United States and to any number of online viewers, for a nice fee of course. The events of the past week have led me to think that Sony intended to provoke North Korea into a response simply for profit. That in itself is not illegal, and trying to impose our moral values on a Japanese corporation is an exercise in futility. It seems likely that further releases may follow the usual course.  The deeper underlying goal may have been to get intense marketing for the online release via news reports. That has certainly succeeded. The advantages of getting the product without going to a theater threatened with terrorist attack may make this the first successful/profitable direct-to-Internet movie. Follow the money. Early opinion via salon.com is that the movie is not really worth watching anyhow.
“Mr. Sorkin is a hypocrite. He complains about media attention as part of an industry that demands constant media attention. The entertainment industry also has interlocking ownership with the traditional news media, so that adds a layer of corruption to the whole picture.
“The reporting is not the only confusing part of economics. The entire field is pretty messy.”
 . . . my follow-up response:
            Re: emotions.  Well said, actually.  I will add reason must exceed emotion.
            Re: name-calling.  Well said, again.  Sometimes, the object is just too easy.  I shall endeavor to be worthy.
            Re: greater representation.  Many people have failed to recognize or accept their obligations above self to the organizations they represent, but that does not alter the simple fact when you wear a uniform, or hold a position within a company or any organization, you represent that entity, not yourself.  Kim Jung Un appears to care less what happens to his country, to the people of his country, as long as his ego is fed amply; he was not the first and he certainly will not be the last to fail that test.
            Re: DPRK.  The art of aggressive acts against others is to make it look like someone else did it for you, e.g., Russia vs. Ukraine, DPRK vs. everyone else.
            Re: screens.  OK, perhaps so, whether 1% or 60% of the screens, the question is rate of return.  It does not alter the imbedded costs already sunk.
            Re: conspiracy.  Perhaps so; if true, they did a masterful job, and Kim played directly to Sony’s profit.  Also, if true, they played directly to the patriotism of Americans.
            Re: The Interview.  I said at the outset the movie is not worth my time or money, and it still isn’t.
            Re: Sorkin.  Listen to and read his words.  He speaks directly to that very dilemma, but it does not alter his message . . . in my humble opinion.
            Re: economics.  Again, well said!

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

22 December 2014

Update no.679

Update from the Heartland
No.679
15.12.14 – 21.12.14
To all,

On Monday, 24.November.2014, a cyber-terrorist group calling itself Guardians of Peace (GOP) [Interesting choice of words for their moniker] released a passel of private eMails stolen from Sony Pictures Entertainment.  The group sought to damage and intimidate Sony and demanded the release cancellation of the Sony movie “The Interview” – a rather silly, satirical, cinematic offering scheduled for theatrical release on Christmas Day, Thursday, 25.December.2014.  Of course, the salacious eMails caught the attention of the media and the cybersphere went all-a-twitter with gossip and giggles.  With information now in the public domain, it is believed the GOP are actually agents of Bureau 121 under the direction of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK), who apparently hacked Sony, stole the password of a systems administrator within the Sony network, and then using the wide-open root access, the GOP rummaged through Sony Pictures’ digital media for roughly two months (by one estimate) to find the material they thought would be most damaging.  I have a hard time accepting this cyber-attack as solely within the capacity of the DPRK in any form; I suspect the GOP agents had direct (or indirect) support from the PRC, which in fact does have the capability for such attacks.  The attack reportedly cost or will cost Sony Pictures in excess of US$100M in damages; yet, the implications of this attack go far beyond the financial loss(es) of an entertainment corporation.

Acclaimed screenwriter Aaron Sorkin offered his opinion of the cyber-attack on Sony Pictures Entertainment.
“The Sony Hack and the Yellow Press – Aaron Sorkin: The Press Shouldn’t Help the Sony Hackers”
by Aaron Sorkin – Op-Ed Contributor
New York Times
Published: DEC. 14, 2014
Sorkin wrote, “Do the emails contain any information about Sony breaking the law? No. Misleading the public? No. Acting in direct harm to customers, the way the tobacco companies or Enron did? No. Is there even one sentence in one private email that was stolen that even hints at wrongdoing of any kind? Anything that can help, inform or protect anyone?”  He concluded: “If you close your eyes you can imagine the hackers sitting in a room, combing through the documents to find the ones that will draw the most blood. And in a room next door are American journalists doing the same thing. As demented and criminal as it is, at least the hackers are doing it for a cause. The press is doing it for a nickel.”  Perhaps Sorkin stopped short.  If no one bought, or read, or showed any interest in the drivel the Press pawns off as newsworthy, the Press would not succumb to this form of voyeurism or Peeping Tom syndrome.  This is contemporary eavesdropping, no different from that articulated in 1769 by Sir William Blackstone [4-13-169].  It was wrong then, and it is still wrong today . . . even if the First Amendment offers legal protection for those professional eavesdroppers in the Press.  Just because they can, does not mean they should.  In this instance, the Press aided and abetted the Guardians of Peace [AKA DPRK Bureau 121]; yet, are not We, the People, ultimately culpable for consuming the drivel the Press passes on regardless of the label – newsworthy or not?

I do not usually watch NBC’s Today Show; Jeanne does.  On Tuesday, I took a break from the final editing of my next To So Few series novel and happened to come upstairs for a fresh cuppa tea as Savannah Guthrie was interviewing acclaimed screenwriter Aaron Sorkin [The West Wing, The Newsroom] about the continuing cyber-attack on Sony Pictures Entertainment.  I heard enough of the interview to peak my interest, and as is so often the case with Sorkin’s words, a few of his phrases struck resonance with me.  Sorkin said, “Something does not have to be illegal to be wrong.  [Stealing the Sony material] is plainly wrong, and we all know it.”  He concluded, “[T]he thing we should be taking seriously first and foremost is privacy and dignity.  The fact that once again, hackers who have threatened violence because [Sony Entertainment] just wants to exercise the same First Amendment right everybody else does . . . the studio just wants to release a movie.  [The hackers] have stolen this material and now the Press is selling it out of the back of a truck.”  Spot on, brother!
            If you did not hear the whole Sorkin interview, I would encourage everyone to take five minutes and watch the video clip of the entire interview.  URL:
            I did not ever see the subject movie as one I would pay to watch – not interesting to me.  The trailers just seemed too silly, ridiculous and unworthy of my time, set aside our money.  There is little doubt in my little pea-brain who is behind the attack on Sony Entertainment.  The Press gave the criminal actions a loud, global voice, all in the name of profit.  Sorkin was precisely and incisively correct.  The public release of internal Sony communications is just plain wrong on a myriad of levels.  By doing so, the Press stoked the fires of public fear and created a highly combustible atmosphere; in short, the Press helped the GOP (AKA DPRK) win this battle handily.  I hope the Press editors and decision-makers are happy with their performance.  I am not!

President Obama signed into law the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015 [PL 113-235; H.R. 83; Senate: 56-40-0-0(4); House: 219-206-0-10(0); 128 Stat. xxxx], funding the federal government through FY2015 – so, no political shutdown this time.  For political junkies, I suppose the need to pass a couple of one-day laws [PL 113-202 & PL 113-203] to extend the deadline, allowing the Senate a few more days time to pass the funding bill, could be seen as entertaining and rather humorous.  Well, at least we have a crisis averted.  Yet, as perhaps an even more humorous footnote to the end of the 113th Congress, before he departed with his family for their Christmas holiday ‘vaca’ and after Congress adjourned for their extended break before reconvening next month as the 114th Congress, the President signed into law 20 of 32 bills that simply named post offices and a few other federal buildings – seems like such a waste of time and money – but hey, that is the Congress we have these days.  Included in the remainder was: the World War I American Veterans Centennial Commemorative Coin Act [PL 113-212], to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the entry of the United States to the Allied effort in the War to End All Wars – not for veterans, as they are all deceased– but for sale, a most important endeavor; and a law Conferring honorary citizenship of the United States on Bernardo de Galvez y Madrid, Viscount of Galveston and Count of Galvez [PL 113-229].  OK, maybe the last one has redeeming value as I learned some history.  I did not know Bernardo de Galvez y Madrid (1746-1786) contributed to the defeat of the British in the Revolution.  It just goes to show you, we learn something every day.  We can feel assured for the holiday season, at least we have a functioning federal government, however tenuous it might be.

President Barack Obama announced the beginning of the normalization of diplomatic relations between the United States and Cuba, ending 55 years of estrangement in the wake of the success of Fidel Castro, who led the 26th of July Movement to defeat the forces of President Fulgencio Batista y Zaldívar [1.January.1959].  In his public statement, the President said, “These 50 years have shown that isolation has not worked.  It's time for a new approach.”  The President was spot on correct.  Continuing to do what we have always done and expecting a different result is one definition of insanity.  Now, if the President can just find the courage to end the even more foolish, so-called war on drugs.  There is always hope.

On Wednesday, Sony Pictures Entertainment cancelled the Christmas Day release of its new movie “The Interview,” after a number of major theater chains rejected their showing of the movie.  The theater owners were apparently fearful enough of the threats broadcast by the cyber-terrorist group GOP that they saw their liability exposure as greater than their profit calculation not just for their showing of the movie but for the complexes they owned.  The threats were made against theaters that showed the movie, not citizens who wanted to see the movie.  I do not know what percentage of screens scheduled to show that movie withdrew their agreement.  The Press reported a handful of large chains in the northeast had withdrawn.  I doubt it was more than a small percentage of the total screens scheduled to show the movie and a long way from their break-even threshold for their profit calculation.  Despite the obvious, Sony Pictures Entertainment Chief Executive Officer Michael Mark Lynton declared publicly, “We did not capitulate.”  Well, Mike, I do not know how you define the word ‘capitulate,’ or what you call your decision, but it sure as hell smells like capitulation to me.  I can certainly understand the perceived liability of theater owners, especially in the aftermath of the Aurora, Colorado, mass attack at another movie showing [554/55; 20.7.2012]; however, I cannot understand the Sony decision.  This episode is all too similar to other clashes between our constitutional rights and intolerant repressive regimes.  The decision by Sony or Sony Entertainment to cave into the intimidation and coercion of the regime in the DPRK suggests Mike Lynton might want to go back to school and learn a little more about the First Amendment to the Constitution.  From the very first pitch of the movie’s premise, even a casual observer could see the controversy, and that was the time for a go/no-go decision regarding antagonism of the Dear Leader Umpa-Lumpa, not at the premier when the final stakes were so much greater.
Postscript: When Kevin Ready and I were constructing our argument for writing “TWA 800 – Accident or Incident?”, we spent more than a little time discussing the potential impact of our conclusion and the risk we would be taking.  After all, we were accusing the tyrannical, theocratic regime of the Islamic Republic of Iran of capital murder and an outright act of war against the United States of America.  The memory of the novel “Satanic Verses” [1988] by Sir Ahmed Salman Rushdie, Kt, was all too fresh in our minds at the time.  At the end of the day, as the song verse goes, “You’ve got to stand for something, or you’ll fall for anything.”  Full stop!

News from the economic front:
-- The U.S. Federal Reserve indicated they would remain patient about raising short-term interest rates in the coming year, as it grapples with an admixture of conflicting metrics about the U.S. economy.  The message is the Fed will effectively hold its plan to start raising short-term interest rates in 2015.
-- The National Bank of Switzerland announced it will introduce negative interest rates, to reduce demand for Swiss francs.  The Swiss central bank will charge banks 0.25% to deposit overnight funds with it.  The range for three-month Swiss franc Libor, will be widened to -0.75% to 0.25%, from 0.0% to 0.25%.
-- In the interesting twist category, we learn that a Justice Department lawyer with the U.S. attorney's office in Sacramento, California, discovered a J.P. Morgan memorandum among tens of millions of related documents, in which an employee warned her bosses they were putting bad loans into securities being created for sale before the financial collapse of 2008. The memorandum helped the Justice Department gain nearly US$37B billion in settlements from J.P. Morgan, Bank of America and Citigroup – but no prosecutions or incarcerations for the decision-makers, as yet.

Comments and contributions from Update no.678:
“Well done my friend.  Excellent reporting of both sides. We have both been water boarded, as were many of our fellow Marines and sailors. I didn't die or have long-term damage, but it scared me at the time, as did some of the other techniques that made you realize you had NO control on what was happening. It made me never want to be captured or subjected to those techniques again. That wasn't torture, it was an effective way to take away my "person" and any control for a period of time - with uncertain duration.
“As I recall we were briefed that some permanent injuries had been sustained by some trainees. Those incidents were the result of over zealous trainers who were dismissed from their jobs. That tells me there is a very fine line between "enhanced techniques" and physical/ psychological damage. Very hard to judge the real facts in hindsight through reports.”
My reply:
            You got that right.  We were trained to endure true torture, even by my definition.  The primary lesson I learned from that training was to avoid that situation . . . don’t get captured.
            Yes, there is a very fine line between acceptable and unacceptable.  As the Senate committee noted, the CIA interrogators lacked training, especially with harsh techniques.  There is no doubt that serious mistakes were made, but at the bottom line, EITs were and should be necessary as tools when the circumstances warrant.  I am also convinced EITs must remain in the professional interrogator’s tool kit; however, a lot of changes need to be implemented for that to happen.
            The Senate report was terribly disappointing – an opportunity lost.

Comment to the Blog:
“I will avoid commenting directly on the Rolling Stone story. You give a good background to the more general issue. The human factors in these cases are endless, and I see no clear way to resolve them in many cases.
“The ‘institutional betrayal’ is clear in the report on torture. The CIA, repeatedly, willfully, and knowingly betrayed the trust placed in it by Congress. The fact that Dick Chaney and others are upset about the facts coming out only reinforces the necessity of bringing this to the attention of the public. Dick Chaney is a war criminal as indicted by an international court.”
My response to the Blog:
            Re: date rape.  You got that right; human factors in these cases are endless.
            Re: CIA.  I could not disagree with you more.  The CIA did everything they could have and should have done in those early days.  They sought legal counsel and supervisory authority to proceed.  They repeatedly sought validations and received them.  We may not like what they did or how they did it, but they did what they believed had to be done to protect We, the People, of this Grand Republic.  I do not agree the CIA betrayed this country; quite the contrary, actually.
            Re: Dick Cheney.  We can disagree with him in toto, but that does not make him a war criminal.
 . . . follow-up comment:
“Have you read any of that report? That's not what anyone else reads there.
“You're right that my opinion does not make Dick Chaney a war criminal. The opinion of a court does.”
 . . . my follow-up response:
            Yes, I have read both the Committee Report and the Minority Views.  When you compare the two at common points, the product is my opinion of the whole effort.
            Re: Cheney.  I cannot see that ever happening.

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

15 December 2014

Update no.678

Update from the Heartland
No.678
8.12.14 – 14.12.14
To all,

Navy, 17 – Army, 10.  Now, I am getting embarrassed for my cousins – USMA 1974 & 1978.  A Baker’s Dozen – 13 and counting – Navy Football has stood victorious over the Black Knights of West Point.  Sorry, Brothers; we love ya nonetheless.  I must say, the first quarter of play did not leave me feeling well.  Thankfully, the Middies figured it out and eventually moved the ball down field.  So, to my cousins, and our brothers-in-arms, good luck next year.  Go Navy, Beat Army.

Resistance is futile!  The Rolling Stone article “Gang Rape on Campus” has created quite the stir in the Blog-o-sphere.  The citation:
“A Rape on Campus: A Brutal Assault and Struggle for Justice at UVA – Jackie was just starting her freshman year at the University of Virginia when she was brutally assaulted by seven men at a frat party. When she tried to hold them accountable, a whole new kind of abuse began”
by Sabrina Rubin Erdely
Published: November 19, 2014
The disconnect for the magazine certainly suggests sloppy reporting or perhaps emotional myopia.  However, regardless of the details that may not be correct, there is no doubt in my little pea-brain that violent, rape assaults like that portrayed in Erdely’s essay happen all too often on university campuses and elsewhere.  Please do not throw out the Erdely essay as the whole of the article is certainly representative of real events.  In this instance, I have first hand experience of a similar nature.  I was honored to hold the position of Chancellor, Prescott (AZ) Campus, Embry Riddle Aeronautical University for two years across three academic years.  In that time, I was confronted with a half dozen cases of sexual assault involving our students.  None of the cases resulted in criminal prosecution despite my encouragement for the women involved to take legal action.  Unfortunately, of the six cases, only two made it to a law enforcement investigation; however, none of them could generate sufficient evidence to attain probable cause and would have fallen short of “beyond a reasonable doubt” for a conviction.  In every case, intoxicants were involved – in every case, alcohol, and in a few of those cases, other drugs, marijuana and likely rohypnol, γ-Hydroxybutyric acid (GHB), or other date rape drugs.  The brouhaha over the Rolling Stone article, and more importantly the allegations and implications of the article’s topic and subject stimulated me to recount my supervisory experience and opinion as a man, a father, a grandfather and as a citizen.
            First, after reviewing the investigative material and interviewing those involved (where possible), there is no doubt in my little pea-brain that serious felonious crimes had been committed in each of the cases in which I was aware.  I was and I still am deeply disappointed criminal prosecution of the wrong-doing did not lead to arrests, trials and convictions, but I have to accept that my opinion was not a legally sustainable position.
            Second, no means no, no matter how or when it is given.  There are no conditions or situations that give a man authority or implicit consent to violate a woman’s body.
            Third, unconsciousness, intoxication of any form, incoherence or any other impaired state are NOT consent . . . FULL STOP!  An unconscious woman is incapable of providing consent.  Therefore, no one should touch her except to protect her.
            Fourth, I offered my fatherly counsel to the women involved and to all of our children and age-appropriate grandchildren.  Do not ever surrender your autonomy to anyone unless you truly trust them with your life.  That means do not EVER consume anything you cannot clearly and unequivocally establish the content, concentration and quality.  Always be suspicious and aware in groups or crowd settings.
            Lastly, with this tragedy playing out in the life of William Henry ‘Bill’ Cosby, Jr., I would be remiss if I did not say so much of this reminds me of the divine right of kings from centuries ago, and the resilient and persistent vestiges of the Doctrine of Coverture, first articulated by Sir William Blackstone in 1765.  I have a long history of rejection and rebellion against such thinking (or mindless reaction), yet I cannot avoid the obvious – why do women place themselves in that position of abdicating control of their space, their autonomy, and their dignity?  Social acceptance simply can never be worth the risk.

The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) finally released its so-called torture report on Friday, 5.December.2014; the actual, proper title is: “Committee Study of the Central Intelligence Agency's Detention and Interrogation Program,” and publicly announced the report on Tuesday, 9.December.2014.  The report was originally approved by the Committee but not released on 13.December.2012.  The confrontation between the Senate Intelligence Committee and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) [659] complicated the release of the report.  I can certainly understand why the CIA was not pleased with this report.  Actually, what we can see in the public domain are the Unclassified or declassified Executive Summary and redacted Findings, along with the accompanying Minority View Report {since this was a precisely divided, political endeavor).  The complete 6,700-page study remains classified Top Secret / [SCI] / NoForn and beyond public scrutiny for what might be 20-50 years.  I vacillated with how to report on the 525-page Executive Summary and the 167-page Minority View.  At the end of the day the Committee led with its findings, so let us do the same and begin with the findings from the Executive Summary.
#1: The CIA's use of its enhanced interrogation techniques was not an effective means of acquiring intelligence or gaining cooperation from detainees.
#2: The CIA's justification for the use of its enhanced interrogation techniques rested on inaccurate claims of their effectiveness.
#3: The interrogations of CIA detainees were brutal and far worse than the CIA represented to policymakers and others.
#4: The conditions of confinement for CIA detainees were harsher than the CIA had represented to policymakers and others.
#5: The CIA repeatedly provided inaccurate information to the Department of Justice, impeding a proper legal analysis of the CIA's Detention and Interrogation Program.
#6: The CIA has actively avoided or impeded congressional oversight of the program.
#7: The CIA impeded effective White House oversight and decision-making.
#8: The CIA's operation and management of the program complicated, and in some cases impeded, the national security missions of other Executive Branch agencies.
#9: The CIA impeded oversight by the CIA's Office of Inspector General.
#10: The CIA coordinated the release of classified information to the media, including inaccurate information concerning the effectiveness of the CIA's enhanced interrogation techniques.
#11: The CIA was unprepared as it began operating its Detention and Interrogation Program more than six months after being granted detention authorities.
#12: The CIA's management and operation of its Detention and Interrogation Program was deeply flawed throughout the program's duration, particularly so in 2002 and early 2003.
#13: Two contract psychologists devised the CIA's enhanced interrogation techniques and played a central role in the operation, assessments, and management of the CIA's Detention and Interrogation Program. By 2005, the CIA had overwhelmingly outsourced operations related to the program.
#14: CIA detainees were subjected to coercive interrogation techniques that had not been approved by the Department of Justice or had not been authorized by CIA Headquarters.
#15: The CIA did not conduct a comprehensive or accurate accounting of the number of individuals it detained, and held individuals who did not meet the legal standard for detention. The CIA's claims about the number of detainees held and subjected to its enhanced Interrogation techniques were inaccurate.
#16: The CIA failed to adequately evaluate the effectiveness of its enhanced interrogation techniques.
#17: The CIA rarely reprimanded or held personnel accountable for serious and significant violations, inappropriate activities, and systemic and individual management failures.
#18: The CIA marginalized and ignored numerous internal critiques, criticisms, and objections concerning the operation and management of the CIA's Detention and Interrogation Program.
#19: The CIA's Detention and Interrogation Program was inherently unsustainable and had effectively ended by 2006 due to unauthorized press disclosures, reduced cooperation from other nations, and legal and oversight concerns.
#20: The CIA's Detention and Interrogation Program damaged the United States' standing in the world, and resulted in other significant monetary and non-monetary costs.
The opening of the Committee’s study Executive Summary certainly set the tone for the remainders of the documents I reviewed.  The Committee offered the brief rationale under their finding #1:
For example, according to CIA records, seven of the 39 CIA detainees known to have been subjected to the CIA's enhanced interrogation techniques produced no intelligence while in CIA custody.”
To which, they added Endnote 1: “As measured by the number of disseminated intelligence reports.  Therefore, zero intelligence reports were disseminated based on information provided by seven of the 39 detainees known to have been subjected to the CIA's enhanced interrogation techniques.” [emphasis added]
The finding is the essence of the entire study and the core of the Committee’s conclusions.  I do not consider myself an intelligence professional, although I do hold an Intelligence Officer secondary Military Occupational Specialty (MOS) among others; however, I have enough experience to observe an extraordinary lack of appreciation for the intelligence collection and analysis processes.  Interrogation information is considered raw data for a myriad of reasons and would rarely be disseminated ‘as is’ even to an audience with established “need to know.”  The key value of interrogation data usually comes in positive (or negative) correlation or corroboration with other independent information.  Thus, to base a major study’s primary finding on a paucity of “disseminated intelligence reports” strikes me as dangerously naïve and terribly misleading.  Although the Minority View summary is a bit lengthy for this humble forum, it is the most illuminating regarding the overall study report.
“First, the Committee's decision not to interview key witnesses led to significant analytical and factual errors in the original and subsequent updated versions of the Study.
“Second, over the objection of the minority, the Committee did not provide a copy of the draft Study to the Intelligence Community for initial fact-checking prior to the vote to adopt the Study at the end of the 112th Congress.
“Third, Committee members and staff were not given sufficient time to review the Study prior to the scheduled vote on December13, 2012.
“Fourth, the Committee largely ignored the CIA's response to the Study on June 27, 2013, which identified a number of factual and analytical errors in the Study.
“Fifth, during the summer and early fall of 2013, SSCI majority staff failed to take advantage of the nearly 60 hours of meetings with some of the CIA personnel who had led and participated in the CIA's study response. Instead of attempting to understand the factual and analytical errors that had been identified by the CIA, the majority staff spent a significant portion of these meetings criticizing the CIA's study response and justifying the Study's flawed analytical methodology.
“Sixth, the production and release of the updated Study was marred by the alleged misconduct of majority staff and CIA employees in relation to a set of documents known as the ‘Panetta Internal Review.’
“Finally, Committee members and staff were not given sufficient time to review the updated Executive Summary and Findings and Conclusions prior to the scheduled vote on April 4, 2014.” [emphasis added]
            Despite the clear appearance of a voluminous, parochial, politically biased condemnation of the Central Intelligence Agency, the agency’s efforts to support the War on Islamic Fascism, and the use of Enhanced Interrogation Techniques (EITs), there are positive, constructive observations that can and should be distilled out of the study and improvements made to correct the identified deficiencies.  Among those lessons-learned observations, the United States and specifically the CIA lacked depth in its Human Intelligence (HumInt) in the aftermath of 11.September.2001, attacks on the Homeland, and the CIA was ill-prepared to carry out the operations it was immediately called upon to execute, notably the interrogation of battlefield combatants.  There are also numerous hints that the coordination between Allied intelligence organizations was less than optimal.
            I am struck by a number of related observations.  The last time the United States carried out such a large interrogation campaign was World War II.  The Ft. Hunt, Virginia, unit known only as P.O. Box 1142 [246] was actually the Military Intelligence Service Section Y that was devoted to the interrogation of high value German, Italian, Japanese and other high value POWs.  Unit P.O. Box 1142 operations were never, even to this day, submitted to the level of scrutiny the CIA has been under for its Detention and Interrogation Program.  On the other side of the equation in this debate, we have the renowned Major Sherwood Moran, USMCR, the master interrogator [491], and the methodical accomplishments of the British MI19 group at Trent Park and elsewhere; there is much to be said for the gentle approach.  Major Moran and MI19 believed they did not need harsh treatment to gain the information they sought.  The difference between then and now was time.  The CIA felt the heat of an impending second wave attack and the prospect of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of al-Qa’ida.  Another critical issue in this on-going debate remains the definition of the emotional threshold of torture.  My definition of torture . . . any activity that results or can result in permanent injury.  What happened to John McCain and other POWs in Hanoi was torture by any definition.  Agents of the CIA clearly failed even by my definition when Gul Rahman – a battlefield combatant affiliated with Afghan group Hezb-e-Islami Gulbuddin (HIG) – died in CIA custody, reportedly of hypothermia as part of his interrogation.  The treatment recounted throughout most of the Committee study was not torture.  I can certainly appreciate and acknowledge that most folks are repulsed and disgusted by the treatment that is the subject of this study; however, war is not a pleasant endeavor.  I think the Minority was spot on correct that one of many elements missing from the Committee’s study was context – the perception and believe during those early years was that there was no time – further attacks were imminent.
            Lastly, I am left with two overwhelming impressions from my reading of the Committee study and the Minority View.  One, I repeatedly had thoughts that this disclosure was an institutional betrayal quite like, virtually identical, to those I felt while struggling to grasp the scope and depth of the Snowden betrayal [599, 610].  Two, the apparent intent of the Committee’s study was destructive, not constructive.  The majority of the Senate Intelligence Committee apparently sought to publicly condemn the CIA’s interrogation efforts in support of the War on Islamic Fascism.  They offered no recommendations, which in turn leaves the impression the majority illuminated a problem(s) without providing any suggestion of how to fix the problem(s).  I can see a number of recommendations for improvements; not least of which is, we clearly need a permanent, professional, intelligence interrogation unit with concise, general guidelines that allow strong inducements when warranted.  I would not encourage the specification of techniques in the public domain.  While I will offer praise for the extraordinary amount of work and effort that went into this study, at the bottom line, I must condemn this foolish, politically motivated, elaborate diatribe by staffers who were apparently offended by the rough treatment of certain battlefield combatant detainees.

For contrast, I offer a mere smattering of contrarian opinions on the interrogation issue:
“I Can’t Be Forgiven for Abu Ghraib – The Torture Report Reminds Us of What America Was”
by Eric Fair
New York Times
Published: DEC. 9, 2014
“Report Portrays a Broken C.I.A. Devoted to a Failed Approach”
by Scott Shane
New York Times
Published: DEC. 9, 2014
I cannot agree with either of these opinions.

Congress passed H.R. 83 – Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015 – that funds the government for FY2015.  It is not a proper budget and appropriations bill, but we have not seen one of those in quite a few years now.  VOTE: Senate: 56-40-0-0(4); House: 219-206-0-10(0).  Various sources report the usual attachments for parochial purposes, but I have too many balls in the air to track them down.  Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts publicly illuminated the most disturbing attachment.   A provision was snuck in that apparently allows big banks to go back to derivative trading, which was one of the activities that brought on the crash of 2008 and the Great Recession.  The President is expected to sign the bill into law early next week.  If he does, we can at least avoid the uncertainty of another federal government shutdown.

Continuation of comments from Update no.676:
 . . . actually Round four:
“I will address an important point here. I thought I had made my idea clear, but you state, ‘I do not believe distrust of the police by citizens with dark skin pigmentation is instinctive.’ Neither do I.  My entire point about tribal instincts is that the very tribal police distrust people with dark skin pigmentation, not the other way around. They distrust many others as well. That fear leads them to over-react to just about any behavior by others not apparently like them.
“Fear of the police by others, including me, is evidence based. For example, my first encounter with police attitudes was when I was 11 years old. The town cop accused me and my two younger brothers of stealing a car battery from a local gas station. This flew in the face of the obvious fact that none of us could have carried a car battery even a few feet. All the same, we rode around in the back of the cruiser all morning, scared out of our minds. Thinking about this now, over fifty years later, I wonder if this might be an early example of that same attitude that lower-class males are bound to cause trouble. I have since had other encounters with law enforcement that increase that fear. I won't tell them all here; I'm not writing a book this morning. Many of my friends share similar stories, and those who have gone to the trouble of studying the police find patterns that support that mistrust by racial and ethnic minorities, the poor, and gay people.
“A smaller point: as I mentioned, DNA seems to be a red herring in the discussion of male homosexuality. Prenatal environment, rather than genetics, seems to be the determining factor there. In any case, sexual orientation is a long multi-factored discussion.”
 . . . my continuing response to round four:
            Re: tribal mentality.  The tribal police distrust is quite the popular notion in so many movie and television programs.  I cannot deny such mentality does exist.  I just question the pervasiveness with which it is portrayed. 
            Re: distrust or perhaps disrespect.  This cycle is quite like my experience as a military professional in the 60’s & 70’s.  As a society, we overcame the disrespect for the military.  I believe we can and should overcome that societal distrust of law enforcement.  Just like the military, law enforcement personnel are us; they are and represent our communities.  The sooner we accept them for what they are – an essential and vital service – the sooner we can move to a more balanced society.  If we treat them like the enemy and obstruct the performance of their duties, we should not be surprised when they react accordingly.
            Here, I will insert a thought.  I respectfully suggest that some of the abuse of power experienced at the hands of police stems from bad law – a classic example is the central case that led to the Supreme Court’s Lawrence v. Texas [539 U.S. 558 (2003); 26.June.2003] [082, 188].  The principals were discovered, tried and convicted of a “morality” crime as a consequence of an erroneously executed arrest warrant – wrong address, wrong people.  Those damnable “morality” laws enable law enforcement “access” to our private lives and allow the abuses we often refer to in our discussions.
            Re: your experience.  I cannot comment or debate the essence of your experience, or the genesis of your avowed distrust of police.  What you lived is what you lived. 
            Re: appearances.  If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it likely is a duck.  Wearing certain clothes, or a mask, or brandishing an object that is an exact replica of Berretta 9mm semi-automatic pistol, make a person appear as an imminent threat.  No one should be surprised when law enforcement reacts accordingly.  A logical conclusion: don’t act like a criminal and you most likely will not be treated as a criminal.  If the police abuse our rights, file a complaint, build a case.
            Re: male homosexuality.  The specter of genetic predisposition seems to be widely held as rationale, i.e., I just am . . . .  There are very few behaviors I can accept as genetically induced, yet, as I stated earlier, I do think genetics may be a contributor, an enabler, of certain behaviors.  Prenatal environment would be one of those infantile contributors that helps build the house on the foundation.  At the end of the day, there must be some very powerful forces involved for an individual to defy the brutal strictures against those innermost attributes.
            Somehow, we must help society break these cycles.
 . . . Round five:
“I see significant differences between the situation with the military versus the police. ‘The military’ came to be seen as soldiers who had been misled into believing they were defending their country. Those soldiers, however, quit being soldiers for the most part. They came home and the bulk of them contributed to their communities. Those who could not contribute were largely shown to have been damaged by the war in question. None of that applies to the police. They are virtually all ‘lifers,’ their attitudes never change, and even those who are decent human beings and do much good in their own right defend the wrongdoers come what may. Whistle blowers meet with major issues, even if all parties know they are telling the precise truth.
“Vietnam veterans specifically have changed their own attitudes, and so the attitudes they encounter have changed. Police technology has changed a great deal, but the attitudes are what they were when I was a child.”
 . . . my response to round five:
            You have an interesting perspective of the military and police.  I can only say, your opinion might benefit from knowing more police officers beyond their profession.

Comments and contributions from Update no.677:
Comment to the Blog:
“I went to Wikipedia for the history of a Brooklyn Dodgers football team. How bizarre. It does give insight into the very commercial nature of big-time sports.
“My interest in history does not focus much on military history. I am more interested in why we make such effort to keep old wounds open.
“The ‘No Social Security for Nazis Act’ is a prime example of pandering for votes. Very few authentic Nazis remain alive, fewer in the United States, and those convicted of crimes will not be receiving Social Security. The real point is that every incumbent in Congress can say he or she voted against Nazis. They would pass a bill against Satan, too, but for the voting non-Christian likes of me.
“I look forward to progress in astronomy and to manned space travel. It might even bring prestige back to a government program if any credit can be wrestled away from private contractors' marketers.”
My response to the Blog:
            Re: commercial nature of big-time sports.  Not a news flash, but at least you got there.  When I first read that little factoid during research, I thought it was a typo . . . and a rather bad one . . . but it was not.
            Re: “such effort.”  Like what?  To what are you referring?
            Re: Nazis.  Quite so.  Window dressing.  The bill seemed so odd as I am reading this book about Nazis in the U.S.  I will have more to say once I’m done with my reading.  It is not clear whether the bill will make it through the Senate before the closing of the 113th Congress . . . so yes, most likely a value-less symbolic vote.
            Re: space.  I have faith . . . it may not be the glory days of Apollo, but it will be good and we shall learn more about where we live.
 . . . follow-up comment:
“I'm sorry, I assumed the effort put into keeping the Pearl Harbor defeat in people's minds was obvious. That battle occurred 73 years ago. Most of the veterans who survived the attack have died of age-related causes. The ensuing war ended 69 years ago. Yet the government goes on spending money along with assorted organizations. The objectives of the news media, the veterans' organizations, and the tourist services in Hawaii are easy to understand. What do the taxpayers get out of keeping this memory fresh?”
 . . . my follow-up response:
            The reason for that “effort” is to remember so we do not forget.  It is also about who gave their last full measure of devotion to freedom.
            Re: “What do the taxpayers get out of keeping this memory fresh?”  Answer: so future generations do not forget, just as they should not forget 9/11, and do their best to never let it happen again.

Another contribution:
“Thanks Cap, phew! Quite an exchange.
“You talk about the wonder of history and the message for William J Donovan. Do you know I didn’t realise until this year that as Roosevelt declared war on  the Japanese so did Great Britain and Australia. We never ever stop learning do we.”
My reply:
            Several anecdotal references suggest Great Britain declared war on Japan before the United States did.  Churchill called Roosevelt that evening and said, “We are all in the same boat now.”  Quite prophetic actually.  Those first few weeks of the combined Allies were amazing as they began to integrate their processes.  My outline has these events at the end of Book VI . . . not yet written . . . but eagerly anticipated.
            I’ve always said, the day I stop learning is the day I die.  I believe it.

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