Lunog

Originally Published August 19, 2009; Last Updated March 15, 2010; Last Republished March 15, 2010:

Today the NYT is reporting that during King Bush the Idiot's reign our CIA hired the private security company Blackwater^1,4 to assassinate jihadists².

Guess King Bush the Idiot and his jesters didn't want the hassle of paperwork, torture, and indefinite detention that came with unilaterally designating them as an enemy combatant.

Web:

• UPDATED 03/15/2010 NYT, Contractors Tied to Effort to Track and Kill Militants.

• UPDATED 02/03/2010 Reuters, Spy agencies can target Americans: official. Blair's comments provide some clarification but more is necessary.

  "...whether that American is involved in a group that is trying to attack us, whether that American is a threat to other Americans, those are the factors involved,...We don't target people for free speech. We target them for taking action that threatens Americans,"--Director National Intelligence, Dennis Blair--

  A bank robber is taking actions that threaten Americans—surely we don't envision a CIA, JSOC, or Blackwater team listing for "capture or kill".

  There must be a hostile and subversive organizational element (e.g. member of al Qaida, or other organization that has declared war or hostilities) with the imminent ability to implement the war or hostilities.

  It must exclude the United States geography to prevent CIA, JSOC and Blackwater assassins roaming our streets.

• UPDATED 01/23/2010 BBC, Biden vows the US will appeal in Iraq Blackwater case.

• UPDATED 01/11/2010 ProPublica, Disposable Army: Civilian Contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan.

  ProPublica in cooperation with LA Times, ABC News, and Washington Post has begun an important series aimed at informing the current debate on privatizing war and related issues.

  Stated in the language used by those who argue privatization is a panacea for everything; is an "efficient war" a desire, delusion, or just damn dangerous?

  It should be noted that much of the asserted "efficiency" comes from front loaded cash payment while denying needed short and long-term care when the inevitable injuries associated with war occur.

  Many of those injured are foreigners whose environment and circumstances do not enable them to fully evaluate or assess the risks

  Wonder what steps companies like L3, Titan, Blackwater et al. take to ensure their educated, undereducated, and illiterate contractors correctly understand and evaluate the risks, assuming you think such is possible.

  Ultimately you have to ask whom are these people engaging in these "war efficiencies" for gain? Should any nation encourage such efficiencies much less engage in obtaining such efficiencies?

  Don't we want war to so inefficient that nations dare not engage in it? And any nation engaging in war becomes bankrupt, both economically and morally?

• UPDATED 01/07/2010 WP, Two defense contractors indicted in shooting of Afghan citizens.

  Ironically, the privatization of war is destructive of our democracy because it enables our leadership to war with little or no accountability.

  Our leadership can perpetually war simply by purchasing a private army that theoretically may be composed entirely of hapless under paid (relative to the risk) foreigners to fight as our proxies.

  For example a private contractor like Blackwater⁴ may implement a form of mercantile mercenary war by hiring hapless Chilean special forces for say $1,000 per month per soldier (an increase over what the Chilean government pays) and then bill our Pentagon $18,000 - 24,000 per month or more for each foreign soldier.

  The number of possible harmful outcomes from using a mercantile mercenary war strategy is numerous, but perhaps the most harmful outcome is that our nation may begin to imagine it can war with little or no costs.

  After all it’s the Chilean or Chinese or Australians or Russian mercenaries who are dying and if the revenue generated is greater than the costs then it’s a clever and viable enterprise to those who think privatization is a panacea! A valid and efficient economic welfare transaction, they'd assert.

• UPDATED 01/03/2010 Reuters, Iraq to support Blackwater lawsuit in U.S. courts.
• UPDATED 12/31/2009 Reuters, Judge [Ricardo Urbina] throws out Blackwater manslaughter charges.

• UPDATED 12/17/2009 Vanity Fair, Tycoon, Contractor, Soldier, Spy.

  Former Special Forces, soldier mercenary, and proprietor of Blackwater Erik Prince is coming in from the cold shadows with a message for his prior sponsors and others now investigating...I'm not going down alone or in silence.

• UPDATED 12/17/2009 NPR, Blackwater: Private Army In The News Again

  NPR, Fresh Air, Terry Gross interviews Jeremy Scahill on Blackwater's¹ CIA, JSOC, and Executive³ sponsored mercenary roles in the Iraq and Afghanistan debacles.

  When do these unaccountable "darkside" shadow operations (shadow finance, shadow military, and shadow executive) consume their sponsors?

• UPDATED 08/20/2009 WP, CIA Hired Firm for Assassin Program (no link has be provided because the Washington Post requires a no cost login):

  "But in 2004, after briefly terminating the program, agency officials decided to revive it under a different code name, using outside contractors, the officials said.

  "Outsourcing gave the agency more protection in case something went wrong," said a retired intelligence officer intimately familiar with the assassination program."--WP

  • UPDATED 01/27/2010 WP, Dana Priest article, U.S. military teams, intelligence deeply involved in aiding Yemen on strikes [The article has been clarified to say that the CIA "capture or kill" list does not include U.S. citizens.]

    The standard for listing on the High Value Target List remains unclear. It has been report as recently as January 27, 2010 as "a continuing and imminent threat to U.S. persons and interests," which seems incredibly broad and dangerous for designating to a "capture or kill" list.

    There must be a hostile and subversive organizational element (e.g. member of al Qaida, or other organization that has declared war or hostilities) with the imminent ability to implement the war or hostilities.

    It must exclude the United States geography to prevent CIA, JSOC and Blackwater assassins roaming our streets.

• UPDATED 08/20/2009 UPI, CIA, Blackwater planned assassination
• NYT, C.I.A. Sought Blackwater’s Help in Plan to Kill Jihadists

-----notes-----

1. Blackwater's lawless reputation is well known which likely factored into its decision to change its name to "Xe" (Zee). Different name same lawless assassins.

Blackwater has more aliases than a terrorist; the newest after Xe is U.S. Training Center, but there are many others.

It's unfortunate that so many of our Special Forces soldiers choose to work for Xe (aka Blackwater) after serving in our well respected Special Forces.

UPDATED 08/20/2009 Former CIA officials also work for the Xe.

2. Outsourcing to private contractors should not be used as a method of enabling our government to do what it could not or would not otherwise do.

The privatization of our government's exclusive war functions should cease immediately.

UPDATED 08/20/2009 It's difficult to imagine a more baleful combination than our government's secret budgets supporting the outsourcing of its war function to a group of exCIA and exSpecial Forces subcontractors. This is not a harmful revolving door it's an explosive mind field.

3. Unfortunately the Obama administration has chosen to continue the Afghanistan debacle and the usage of shadow operations—the Afghanistan commander General Stanley McChrystal was previously the commander of JSOC.

4. UPDATED 01/07/2010 Blackwater and similar companies prefer the term private security company or private security contractor instead of mercenary for legal and moral reasons. The term mercenary implies you are simply killing for financial gain instead of say God or Seventy-Two Virgins or allegiance to country.

Here's how some protocols define mercenary—a mercenary is any person who:

• Is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict; and
• Does, in fact, take a direct part in the hostilities; and
• Is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain.

Now compare what Blackwater employees do or did in Iraq, Afghanistan, and worldwide and judge for yourself whether they are mercenary.

See also Congressional Research Service Report, Private Security Contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan: Legal Issues dated December 2009 (R40991) for a short discussion.

The Halibut Veterans' Association (HVA) has announced its 2010 reunion will be held on September 1-4, 2010 in the city of Fort Mitchell, Kentucky (aerial map). Halibut's fifty year1 reunion is happening concurrent with the 2010 U.S. Submarine Veterans National Convention (USSVI2) and the centennial birthday celebration of the city of Fort Mitchell (statistics)3 incorporation.

-----notes-----

1. The USS Halibut SSGN 587 was commissioned (delivered) on January 04, 1960 and was later converted to an SSN when the Regulus program was canceled.

2. Many off the USSVI boat crews are staying at the Drawbridge Hotel in Fort Mitchell.

HVA is still in discussions with hotels and has not yet announced its "official hotel".

3. The city of Fort Mitchell (official site), which is just across the Ohio River from Cincinnati, Ohio, was named in honor of General Ormsby McKnight Mitchel—notice the misspelling of the city's name, which became permanent.

Mitchel was born in Union County, Kentucky, in 1809 and graduated from the United States Military Academy in 1829. General Mitchel built Fort Mitchel in October 1861 and organized the initial defenses of Northern Kentucky against Confederate invasion.

Mitchel freed the slaves of Hilton Head Island before Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation, thereby creating our country's first autonomous community of freed slaves.

It appears the Republicans have added another "mission accomplished" to their inventory, a mission previously thought near impossible—uniting the Democrats on a strategy to move forward, notwithstanding select senator gridlock and special interest hurdles.

Finally, almost over a healthcare hurdle—on to the affordable world-class education for our children hurdle.

Web:

UPI, Obama to overhaul No Child Left Behind. "Our competitors understand that the nation that out-educates us today will out-compete us tomorrow"--UPI quoting the President-- Some things have universal characteristics, not to mention universally adorable—her backpack is half her size.

A three judge panel from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, reversing its earlier decision, ruled that the phrase "under God" in our Pledge of Allegiance does not violate the Establishment Clause of our First Amendment.

Two members of the panel thought the phrase "under God" when read in a larger historical context simply expresses a non-religious or patriotic secular purpose—placing inalienable rights beyond our government's power.

The majority's unsatisfying attempt to ineffectively secularize the concepts of Creator-God likely reflects its understandable, if unfortunate² reluctance to entangle (weak lemon pun) the court in the ongoing debate over our nation's religious delusion of one nation under God.

Or as the dissenting Circuit Judge Reinhardt¹ more eloquently puts it:

"...Only a desire to change the rules regarding the separation of church and state or an unwillingness to place this court on the unpopular side of a highly controversial dispute regarding both patriotism and religion could explain the decision the members of the majority reach here and the lengths to which their muddled and self-contradictory decision goes in order to reach the result they do..."--Circuit Judge, Reinhardt--

Fortunately, more Americans are engaging the unpopular and controversial debate—eventually the disentanglement of our nation from its religious delusion will be neither unpopular nor controversial.

Web:

• SFGate, Appeals Court says 'Under God' not a prayer
• Findlaw, Newdow v. Rio Linda Union Sch. Dist., No. 05-17257

-----notes-----

1. Reinhardt's dissent simultaneously demonstrates the strength of our Constitution, judiciary, nation, and Americans.

2. On constitutional questions where there exists a low probability that our legislative branch can or will act in remediation of the constitutional issue a high probability of remedial action by our judicial branch is required.

By definition these questions will always be unpopular and controversial, but no less offensive to our beautiful and magnificent Constitution or no less deserving of immediate remediation by a respected and intrepid judicial branch.

Transmutation of the religious phrase "under God" into the a secular patriotic phrase is neither decisive nor intrepid, or constitutional.

It will not be "God" that saves our courts, but rather well reasoned and respected opinions, notwithstanding controversy or popularity.

In a bit of low scoring mental gymnastics a three judge panel from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals says dicta in County of Allegheny v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573, 602-03 (1989) is not inconsistent with Aronow v. United States, 432 F.2d 242 (9th Cir. 1970) which remains valid Ninth Circuit law holding that our national motto, "In God We Trust" does not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

Specifically, "In God We Trust" is patriotic or ceremonial in character, according to the court.

Does that mean Americans rejecting our national motto "In God We Trust" are unpatriotic?

Web:

• SFGate, Court: 'Under God' in Pledge is constitutional
• Findlaw, Newdow v. US Congress, No. 06-16344

Originally Published December 23, 2009; Last Updated March 11, 2010; Last Republished March 11, 2010:

Wonder when our cannibal capitalists and their patrons1 are going to acknowledge that an "invisible hand" does not mean "sleight of hand" and apologize for the harm they've caused? Fortunately, hubris and lack of humility are not weaponry—on the other hand weaponry's harm is relatively local. A "sleight of hand", in the absence of acknowledgment and apology generally invites a reactive "heavy hand".

Res:

• UPDATED 02/20/2010 FRB St. Louis, Financial Crisis Timeline

• UPDATED 01/13/2010 The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission

  Hopefully, the FCIC will make collateral recommendations for mitigating or obviating each risk it recommends that our banks henceforth reject—the risks and collateral problems don't just disappear because we prohibit our banks from accepting or exploiting those risks.

Web:

• UPDATED 03/11/2010 Reuters, Big majority wants Wall Street regulation.

• UPDATED 02/06/2010 Reuters, G7 wants banks to pay for rescue, details pending

  What a wonderful idea—what could be more capitalist than saying to our financial institutions, if you recklessly or negligently send a defective or Trojan financial product into the global stream of commerce you will be held accountable.

  Not only for the direct bailout cost but also all the proximate costs of the entire global financial carnage!

  ...and rather than getting all “lawyered up” government’s on behalf of the citizens of each nation can just incrementally recoup the damages—a kind of lawyerless global product liability class action (ironically a judge might not permit such a lawsuit because the carnage is too speculative!).

  Is there difference if a business fails because it lacks liquidity or electricity? Is failure to modify a defective or Trojan financial product really a failure to mitigate damages for which punitive damages should be assessed and added to the other damages?

• UPDATED 02/03/2010 UPI, Obama to Democrats: 'Finish the job'

  "We've got to finish the job" on healthcare and financial regulatory reform, reducing the deficit and other tough issues,...We've got to finish the job even though it's hard."

  In another article the president went on to say:

  "If anybody is searching for a lesson from Massachusetts, I promise you the answer is not to do nothing,"

  We may just have a leader in our White House—go Mr. President.

  Put the cots, catering service, and senate physician on standby, there maybe a couple "real filibusters”!

• UPDATED 01/31/2010 NYT OpEd Paul Volcker, How to Reform Our Financial System . Former Federal Reserve Chairman supports urgent banking reforms consistent (or if you prefer not inconsistent) with the president's current proposal.

  The former chairman argues for spinning-off the bank's high-risk mega gambling operations (hedge funds, private equity funds, and proprietary trading) in to separate entities leaving our banks to focus on traditional banking operations.

  Basically returning to an updated version of the system as it was before McCain et al turned Adam Smith's invisible hand in to their sleight-of-hand. Not surprisingly some of our banks argue for continuing the current commingling or confusing internal walling operations as cover for their high-risk gambling operations.

  When the bank's high-risk gambling operations are untangled and spun-off it will be simpler to ensure the high risk gambling operations stand or fall on their own and do not hold our traditional banking or financial system at risk.

• UPDATED 01/13/2010 Reuters, Barons of Wall Street concede failures, defend pay.²

  Hopefully the FCIC will have access, voluntarily or via subpoena and legal process, to all relevant documents, testimony, and persons, notwithstanding any prior SEC or Treasury or other agency agreements.

• UPDATED 01/13/2010 CSM, Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission: Top bankers contrite, sort of.

  Commissioner Angelides on JP Morgan Chase et al.'s selling securitized tranches of high-risk mortgages and simultaneously hedging that those tranches will default:

  "It seems like you were selling a car with faulty brakes and then buying an insurance policy on that car"--Angelides--

  Perhaps, but a car with faulty brakes can be turned off and steered to the roadside; or put it in reverse; or preventably crashed without paralyzing or destroying our entire national highway system.

• UPDATED 01/10/2010 NYT, Walk Away From Your Mortgage!.

  Instead of restructuring distorted (some might say fraudulent) primary residence mortgages our cannibal capitalists are telling our homeowners they have a responsibility to make good on their distorted mortgage.

  That's the same thing the cannibal capitalists has told our Treasury when the Treasury was forced to stabilize the financial system and bailout the bankrupt hedge funds—you have an obligation to pay 100% of our bet against homeowners' ability to pay and Treasury is so far doing it.

  How about instead if our cannibal capitalists apologize for their [insert your own words]; restructure (principle and interest) the distorted primary residence mortgages (perhaps all nonspeculative mortgages?) to reflect current economic conditions; and Not pay 100% on the dollar to the hedge funds (CDO) betting against our homeowners' ability to pay!

  Yes, it's "complex" and messy; Yes, our nation's international standing will suffer; Yes, it will take us years to recover; Yes, our free markets (financial or goods) are not always efficient; Yes, we must prohibit gambling with our nation's and children's future; Yes, we must restrain the insatiable cannibal capitalists (it's worth noting the cannibal capitalists' behavior risk taking or incentives for risk taking has changed little since the meltdown) lest they devour our nation, capitalists, others, and themselves.

• UPDATED 12/24/2009 Banks Bundled Bad Debt, Bet Against It and Won

  “The simultaneous selling of securities to customers and shorting them because they believed they were going to default is the most cynical use of credit information that I have ever seen,”--NYT quoting consultant Sylvain R. Raynes--

  Dig deep enough and you're likely to discover their mother or grandmother was a customer!

-----notes-----

1. In the case of congressional patrons they are also benefactors from those participating in the thinly disguise system of legal bribery called campaign finance.

In the case of the tinker think tanks the patrons on the government side of the revolving door are the benefactors on the tank side of the door.

It's useful to note that the patron-benefactor revolver incentivizes extreme policy by shielding its participants from the effects the extreme policy. Your next job is as a paid lobbyist for those extreme policies while you wait for the revolver to cycle.

2. UPDATED 01/13/2009 Focusing exclusively on bankers may cause you to miss other salaries like Christine M. Oliver, President and CEO of the non-profit Chicago Dwellings Association—compensation-salary in 2008 $685,000 (see Big Salary for Chicago Housing Nonprofit Exec).

Originally Published October 09, 2009; Last Updated March 11, 2010; Last Republished March 11, 2010:

Our high school principals (circus ringmaster is a more apropos title) have tough jobs and rarely will you discover one who does not genuinely care for their students. However, periodically our principals will disrupt the very diverse and dynamic learning environment they are responsible for developing, nurturing, and maintaining for the benefit of our sometimes not so grateful teens⁶.

Such is the case for North Cobb High School principal Phillip D. Page¹ when he offered assaulted⁴ student Jonathan Escobar the option of dressing more masculine or switching to a home school program.

An intolerant environment is never a learning environment—in fact intolerance by definition presumes there is nothing to learn. Exactly the opposite of the diverse and dynamic learning environment principals work so hard to develop, nurture, and maintain.

The reported facts are sketchy⁴. Apparently Jonathan is anatomically male but is more comfortable presenting as a female. Some of Jonathan's peers felt uncomfortable³ with Jonathan's feminine presentation and decided an assault⁴ was a proper remedy for their discomfort.

Principal Page instead of condemning the assault⁴ as an ineffective remedy for one's discomfort implicitly condemned Jonathan's feminine attire. Having condemned Jonathan's attire it logically followed, for Principal Page, that such attire is disruptive and must therefore be removed from North Cobb's environment.

By implicitly condemning Jonathan's attire, declaring it disruptive, and insisting on its removal Principal Page has himself disrupted North Cobb High School's learning environment.

Principal Page should immediately reverse his error by apologizing and inviting Jonathan back to North Cobb High School (assuming Jonathan wants to return⁵). Taking whatever steps are necessary to ensure Jonathan's safety while at school so that all students have an opportunity to learn and benefit from Jonathan's presence².

Web:

• Other Incidents of Gender Harassment:

  • UPDATED 03/11/2010 UPI, Prom canceled over same-sex date flap .

    Many of our schools, instead of teaching our children to master the concepts of tolerance are breeding pools for a harmful and virulent infectious intolerance—as with all harmful infectious vectors we must isolate and control or eliminate them.

    Additionally, we must do more to ensure all of our states achieve parity in providing our children continuous access to a quality education measured by rigorous national standards (UPI, Govs, educators propose common standards)—ensuring that tolerance replaces intolerance and high educational attainment replaces ignorance.

    Unfortunately, for awhile it may take lawsuits to guarantee our children are treated equally and with tolerance and treat others the same.

  • UPDATED 01/15/2010 NPR, Justice Department Intervenes In Gay Rights Suit.

  • UPDATED 12/23/2009 UPI, Santa costume gets student suspended.

    Imagine the self-discipline required of our principals who must sit across from a santa-suited student and say with a straight face: "there's nothing wrong with your santa-suit, you just can't wear it to class"!

    ...the santa-suit wearing student was sent home for the day...his comment..."there were elves and reindeer and they didn't get suspended..."

    What about that principal Phillip D. Page (not connected with Strath Haven High)...how come the elves and reindeer didn't get suspended...wouldn't it just be better if our schools focused on teaching our students how to learn instead of how to dress what to wear.

• UPDATED 11/10/2009 NYT, Can a Boy Wear a Skirt to School?.

  Eventually we'll learn that it's the dress codes and fashion police creating the problem not what our students wear or don't wear.

  Evidently it's going to take awhile, we've been working on it since 19^th century women (and some men) first cinched up their curvy corset.

• UPDATED 10/19/2009 SouthernVoice, Student who wore female attire to North Cobb school returning to Miami.

• UPDATED 10/16/2009 SouthernVoice, What not to wear to school?.

  Why do our educators, administrators, and teachers persist in focusing on the irrelevant topic of a person's clothes?

  What does it matter if a person sits in class wearing a "Go Warriors" jersey and football helmet; or a band uniform and band leader's hat; or a neon pink diva wig and woman's dress boater hat with satin bow; or ninja costume; or judogi or clown face or whatever?

  Why aren't our educators, administrators, and teachers praising Jonathan's individuality and expressiveness, not to mention courage in exploring and developing his own identity?

  Surely our educators, administrators, and teachers are too enlightened to think a person's identity is: discoverable by reading a birth certificate; or determined by the jocks on the football team; or derived by the process of assault and battery.

  Wonder if you learn better dressed in what makes you comfortable with yourself or what makes others comfortable with you?

• UPDATED 10/10/2009 AJC, Cobb teen told he can't dress like a female at school
• UPI, Student withdraws from school over dress

-----notes-----

1. North Cobb High School is located in Kennesaw, Georgia and has a Great Schools overall rating of 7 of 10.

2. Principal Page's actions deprive other students from benefiting by Jonathan's presence.

By what logic can one or a few assaulting students deprive the entire student body (≈ 2,608) of North Cobb High School of the benefits from Jonathan's presence?

3. Education by definition is a diverse dynamic process. Stated differently what would a biologist learn by viewing the same cell, on the same slide, at the same magnification, with the same stain day after day?

Education (aka dynamic diversity) can be a painful process for our teens (particularly if they are taught or think it’s a static process). Just when a teen is confident they've worked out the whole penis-vagina thing, a Jonathan strolls past.

Damn...what the hell was that, they say to themselves? Some will begin the process of updating their learning (gender identity)—others will begin the process of updating their learning (civil society and assault).

So,...when does dynamic diversity (aka education) become disruptive? Your response is more important to the future of our nation than may be apparent on first thought.

Unfortunately Principal Page’s preference is for students updating their civil society and assault learning over those updating their gender identity learning (i.e. he removes Jonathan from North Cobb High School).

4. UPDATED 10/10/2009 It's unclear whether Jonathan was fearful or in apprehension of imminent harmful contact.

The Atlanta Journal Constitution (AJC) reported (see "Web:" section above) that Jonathan said "Everybody was surrounding me [in the lunchroom]". The AJC also reported that police pulled Jonathan from class to express concern for his safety.

Jonathan has said in an interview with local media that a verbal altercation about him turned into a fight (i.e. battery) between other students.

5. UPDATED 10/25/2009 Jonathan has permanently withdrawn from the hostile and intolerant environment at North Cobb High School. (see Student who wore female attire to North Cobb school returning to Miami)

Notwithstanding there exist zero data supporting any notion that a student's clothing is in anyway positively correlated with education (unless indoctrination or dogma is a proxy for education).

The notion that education is a place or location where you are indoctrinated or learn dogma is oxymoronic. Our children are correct to reject such a notion and our educators, teachers, and administrators must do the same (also our School Boards, Legislatures, and Supreme Court).

School is a dynamic and diverse environment where our children learn to learn, not where they are indoctrinated and recite dogma. School is not just a three-ring circus—in the case of North Cobb High School it's a two-thousand-six-hundred-eight-ring circus. One less now that Jonathan has permanently withdrawn. Not a comfortable environment for a dogmatist.

The risk of confusing education with indoctrination or dogmatic learning is that you produce dynamically illiterate individuals. The impacts of dynamic illiteracy are at this very moment negatively impacting a significant portion of our globe as populations struggle against a fast changing world.

Stated differently their dogma is obsolete and they cannot dynamically adapt—they only know how to wear one set of clothing in a clothing optional world. Increasingly their one set of clothing includes a suicide vest—each detonation is a poignant declaration against teaching or learning dogma. (see NYT Breaking News October 25, 2009; 0841am EST, Iraq Ministries Targeted in Car Bombings; Over 130 Dead)

6. UPDATED 10/26/2009 Many times it's the dynamically illiterate parents imposing their dogma on a principal.

Our school boards, legislatures, and Supreme Court can help immensely in this regard by protecting our principals from dogmatic parents. Occasionally it’s the school boards and legislatures imposing the dogma, which is where our Supreme Court can help.

Originally Published January 12, 2010; Last Updated March 10, 2010; Last Republished February 10, 2010:

Google is no longer willing to serve the China market while aiding and abetting the Chinese Communist Party's (CCP) censorship of the Internet.

Discussions are ongoing, but given the CCP's recent efforts to tighten its grip on the Internet, it's likely Google will be leaving China, if temporarily.

Some in China have begun to debate whether China wants a civil society with universal characteristics or a CCP dictatorship with Chinese characteristics.

The recently increased Internet restrictions by the CCP are its initial efforts to gain an advantage and control that debate.

If the CCP thought their restrictive efforts would succeed there'd be no need to hack and attack Google or target Chinese human rights activists' accounts.

Res:

• Google, A new approach to China.

Blog:

• UPDATED 01/15/2010 ChinaScope, ChinaScope 39: Google's fight in China. Adds some context and perspective.

• UPDATED 01/14/2010 CDT, “It’s Not Google that’s Withdrawing from China; It’s China that’s Withdrawing from the World” (Updated with Photos).

  Unfortunately, the posting title maybe all too prescient. The community of nations must do everything possible to convince China that hiding behind walls is no longer an option.

Web:

• UPDATED 03/05/2010 Reuters, Beijing says working with Google to resolve dispute.

  • UPDATED 03/10/2010LAT, Google wants U.S. to include Internet freedom in trade agreements

    Google's Deputy General Counsel Nicole Wong urges (pdf) lawmakers (House Committee Foreign Affairs Hearing) to incorporate free (frictionless) Internet information flows into our trade agreements—a most excellent idea.

• UPDATED 02/26/2010 NYT, Hacking Inquiry Puts China’s Elite in New Light.

• UPDATED 02/24/2010 Reuters, China says Google hacking claims "groundless".

  Hey Qin Gang, you'll want to at least make some pretense toward investigating the allegations before informing us China does everything by the law and chefs can't write software code.

• UPDATED 02/18/2010 NYT, Two Chinese Schools Said to Be Tied to Online Attacks.

• UPDATED 02/12/2010 NYT, China Alarmed by Security Threat From Internet.

  One of the significant benefits of building and maintaining a civil society is that the nation gets methods for dealing with rumors, splits, and discord for free!

  Otherwise the nation must waste considerable resources building, maintaining, and managing the coercive, repressive, and corrupt machinery needed to control "rumors", "splits", and "discord" to impose a "harmonious" society.

  The resources are wasted because the oxymoronic and Sisyphean effort to impose harmony eventually fails, inflicting great harm in the process¹.

• UPDATED 02/04/2010 WP, Google to enlist NSA to help it ward off cyberattacks.

  It appears Google is in the process of finalizing a non-disclosure agreement with our spy agency (NSA) that will share the raw digital debris and system environment related to the recent China hacking of their system (Aurora cyber-attacks).

  The joint effort is likely aimed at developing a fingerprint of the attack, which can then be used in response to future cyber-threats.

  Needless to say the teaming arrangement raises may questions not the least of which is what digital forensic capabilities are found at the NSA that aren't better obtained elsewhere? Given Google’s dominant technical and market position it may be getting help from a competent benign partner (from Google’s perspective) than the best malignant one?

  Given Google’s hyper sensitivity to users and its motto "Don't be evil" we can expect a lot more explanation in the near future.

• UPDATED 02/03/2010 BBC, Net firms quizzed on China plans.

  Durbin sends letter to technology firms regarding Internet freedom in China.

• UPDATED 01/30/2010 USDoS, Remarks at the International Conference on Afghanistan [included a question on China-Google Internet].

  Our nation is very fortunate indeed to have this Secretary of State at this time in our short history.

  "...I [Secretary of State Hillary Clinton] raised the issue, as you would have expected I did, on the Google and internet freedom front. China has its approach. Obviously, they feel strongly that they are much more open than perhaps they’re getting credit for. We expressed – I expressed my concerns that we don’t want to create a series of actions that in any way impinges on the freedom and utility of the internet. But it was a very open, candid conversation. We agreed we will continue to discuss this matter in the context of our ongoing dialogue...."--Secretary of State Hillary Clinton--

• UPDATED 01/23/2010 Reuters, Bill Gates says Internet needs to thrive in China.

  It's difficult to determine whether Microsoft's chairman is being disingenuous, opportunistic, or just censorship apologist for China's communist party.

  Hopefully Microsoft's chairman will provide his definition of limited in the coming days—many would not refer to China’s censorship as limited.

  It should also be pointed out that it is not just censorship that is at issue but illegal cyber-attacks and exploits involving Microsoft's Internet browser (see Microsoft tackles 17-year old bug; perhaps a warning label "use at your own risk" is in order).

  Most would not disagree that China (and all nations) must have a thriving Internet—preferably with zero to minimal content censorship.

• UPDATED 01/23/2010 Reuters, China says it needs no Internet lessons from U.S..

  ...well, Mr. Min Dahong with all due respect you do need lessons on not engaging in censorship of the global Internet.

  A country by connecting to the global Internet (as opposed to non-global intranets) incurs certain minimum obligations, among them, minimum friction on information flows and freedom of expression, not engaging in or sponsoring cyber-attacks or cyber-warfare....

• UPDATED 01/21/2010 Reuters, China downplays Internet feud with United States and United States Department of State, Internet Freedom, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

  One can certainly understand China's assertion that the "Google Incident" shouldn't be linked to our bilateral relationship.

  However, the international process of acquiring intellectual property and gaining access to frictionless information flows goes to the very heart of our bilateral relationship.

  "...And censorship should not be in any way accepted by any company from anywhere. And in America, American companies need to make a principled stand. This needs to be part of our national brand. I’m confident that consumers worldwide will reward companies that follow those principles.....No nation, no group, no individual should stay buried in the rubble of oppression. We cannot stand by while people are separated from the human family by walls of censorship. And we cannot be silent about these issues simply because we cannot hear the cries...."--Secretary of State Hillary Clinton--

• UPDATED 01/20/2010 Reuters, U.S. has met with China on Internet freedom: official.
• UPDATED 01/17/2010 NYT, After Google’s Stand on China, U.S. Treads Lightly.

• UPDATED 01/16/2010 Reuters, Yahoo pulled into Google fracas, Alibaba reacts.

  Why isn't every American and democratic based company speaking out on behalf of Google—it's not like we do not know how unconstrained authoritarian-totalitarian leaning regimes end.

  Do theses companies suppose in an era of the Internet and Wikileaks they can secretly aid and abet China's authoritarian regime for gain?

• UPDATED 01/15/2010 Reuters, U.S. to send formal message [demarche] to China on Google case.

  Formally puts frictionless information flow (hacking is one form of friction), and Internet on China-U.S. track I radar.

• UPDATED 01/14/2010 Reuters, U.S. backs Google in China spat, seeks explanation.
• Reuters, Google says may pull out of China after Web attacks.

-----notes-----

1. Of course civil society leadership can also inflict great harm on a nation—witness the great harm inflicted on our nation by its previous leadership (two disastrous conflicts and an economic meltdown).

However, in a civil society leadership replacement and corrective action is relatively immediate and swift, thereby mitigating and containing the harm.

Originally Published February 16, 2008; Last Updated March 10, 2010; Last Republished March 10, 2010:

Danish newspapers should continue publishing the cartoons parodying the violence advocated in the name of the prophet Mohammad until Danish authorities have locked up all those using violence to suppress ideas they find offensive.

Muslim clerics and followers of the prophet Mohammad, in Denmark and elsewhere need a different message. Advocating or using violence on behalf of the prophet Mohammad is a brain-dead message and strategy—whether to suppress speech, cartoons or the film Submission.

Not everybody thinks that rocking, reciting, and chanting the Koran until you're brain dead is a good idea!

The controversial cartoons that were published and republished by Danish newspapers (and others) can be viewed by clicking on the below published cartoon:

Web:

• UPDATED 03/10/2010 NYT, Pennsylvania Woman Tied to Plot on Cartoonist.
• UPDATED 10/28/2009 CSM, FBI arrests two Chicago men for Danish terror plot.

• UPDATED 10/27/2009 CSM, Islamic countries push a global 'blasphemy' law.

  It might not be obvious to some followers of Islam but the world in general and America in particular has had quite a bit of experience with "blasphemy laws" to nefarious affect and effect.

  Stated differently, if Islam is beneficial to people it will not need blasphemy laws, promises of seventy-two virgins in heaven, suicide-bombers, jihadists, jihad wars, suppression of critical speech, physical violence, censorship, filters, repression, coercion, or ignorance¹ to protect and perpetuate it.

  If on the other hand Islam (or other religions) proves not to be beneficial to people it will need all of the above and more to protect and perpetuate it.

• UPDATED 02/19/2008 CSM, Republished Danish cartoon of prophet Muhammad ignites tensions

• UPDATED 02/17/2008 BBC, Danish MPs refuse cartoon apology Danes tell the Iranians to fuck off, diplomatically of course: "If anyone needs to apologise for freedom of speech, human rights, imprisonments, executions and lack of democracy, it is the Iranians."--Villy Soevndal--

  Kudos to the Danes!

• UPI, Muslim clerics upset about cartoon revival

-----notes-----

1. Lacking access to education and uncensored and unfiltered ideas—inhibited or impeded in freedom of thought, judgment, and decision.

Originally Published January 30, 2010; Last Updated March 10, 2010; Last Republished March 10, 2010:

Last week our Supreme Court decided Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, a monstrous 5-4 opinion unconvincingly¹ characterizing our corporations as associations of citizens entitled to First Amendment political speech rights, limited only by disclaimer and disclosure requirements.

The majority seems to have conflated the regulatory process applicable to our corporations with the political process applicable to our citizens. Evidently, an interest to protect is sufficient for the majority to guarantee our corporations First Amendment rights in our political process.

That said one can only hope for such a simplified, expansive, and unlimited approach for all First Amendment case law—call it the return to ancient First Amendment principles approach to First Amendment case law.

Web:

• UPDATED 03/10/2010 ProPublica, Higher Corporate Spending on Election Ads Could Be All but Invisible.

• UPDATED 03/10/2010 WP, Chief Justice John Roberts: Scene at State of Union 'very troubling'.

  Our chief justice does the Supreme Court and our nation a disservice by engaging in polemics with respect to the courts recent decisions.

  It may be news to a youthful and energetic chief justice but that's what a Supreme Court justice does—sit, study, listen, and decide hopefully with dispassionate interest and without political polemics².

  It’s unlikely Supreme Court justices can successfully and simultaneously engage the role of polemic politician and credible Supreme Court justice without doing harm to themselves and the Court.

-----notes-----

1. Many have viewed the decision as an unreasoned political polemic, which further dulls our Supreme Court's patina of credibility.