7 Color Lagoon

A picture from my garden as a post for today. Appropriate for Sunday.

Another Real Estate agency is promoting my house — their site puts it in the “Hotel/B&B” category. It would fit well there with its size, bedrooms with views, upper and lower floor terraces, dock, boat ramp, huge lap pool, gardens, casita, perimeter walls and spectacular views of the Lagoon of the 7 Colors, La Laguna de las Siete Colores.

This agency is Mexico International which is based in Merida with an office in Mahajual, the Caribbean coast near here. The specific listing is HERE.

I am tripping a non-Kerouac ramble from jungle-Mexico up to tourist-Mexico, on-board a cruise ship to Miami, to New York and back to Miami for the medical games for which I came . This is not the journey of Jack, Mrs. Kerouac’s son nor his roll of paper to document the journey across the land. This is not Robert Frank’s photo-trek across the landscape of American people and faces, waitresses and signs, the landscape of hope and despair. Frank worked with film with real grain, gritty pictures pushed to the limits. Kerouac had a grainy head, highly sensitive and harshly ready to show itself to posterity, that generation down the road of time.

It is my trip into what I thought would be the lonely road of the forgotten railroads washed over by time and jets, federal highways filled with vacation throngs. Not. There is a new view of the rails in America. Changes are happening fueled by the forces of Arab threat and hellish security.

In 1959 Cary Grant crawled into the upper berth of a spacious room on the 20th Century Limited to Chicago in order to hide in the corn rows from the biplane of doom. Back in 1954 or so this boy watched the Silver Meteor in its diesel aerodynamic glory ring its glory bell as it pulled in Tampa’s Union Station from New York. The stuff of dreams, of travel, of exotic New York and of that shiny fine locomotive of gleaming power.

Eisenhower’s federal highway system grew from a semi-military, cold war path for missiles into the economic arteries of America. From it came the red highway network of coast-to-coast trucks and the slow strangulation of the passenger rail, the ascendancy of the 4 car family and the blossom of airline routes tying the nation together at high speed, business travelers rushing to the airport gate to be stopped by all the other travelers headed for the gates.

America reacted to another Pearl Harbor. It installed guards at the gates to shut the barn doors and guard them with machine guns against explosive shoes. Air travel which had fueled great industries began to be painful. There seemed few alternatives. Passenger ships were mostly gone and Amtrak had lost the luster of the glory days of romantic rails.

AN AMTRAK TREK: PART I

This expatriate came visiting America again but needed to keep going from Miami, where the ship left his non-flying soul, to The City: New York. Ah, the romance. Ah, the luxury. Bring on that Pullman porter and hear the bell ring and the proud conductor call “All aboard”.

It is 2007. The ticket was booked on-line. I made this trip about 10 years ago from Rhinebeck, NY, through the City to Tampa to visit my ill mother. I was broke that year — could barely afford a coach ticket. It was better than I thought but the coach for 27 hours was stiffening, the train and toilets clean until somewhere in the South when everyone was too tired, the trip too long.

This is another year, another life and I splurged on the roomette for luxury, for survival and perhaps for the romance of railroading. The roomette was an extra $185 dollars over the $113 for the ticket. It was said to be fine for two but there is only one of me. Super-sized Americans may not fit into the roomette with ease.

Meals in the dining car are included along with bottled water and other first class perks. I didn’t believe it would be worth the money. Trains are great for medium distance intercity travel. New York to Washington, Albany to New York, throw in a Boston and these are great trips of luxury, speed and comfort delivering the traveler from center city to center city without the taxi ride out to where they hid the airports. (more…)

It was 1957. I was 10-ish and loved astronomy, science-fiction, dream flights to the stars, Robert Heinlein and Arthur C. Clarke. Russia launched Sputnik to the shock of America, its arch rival in the war of this and that. After the “beeps” from that metal ball and the space dog there was the race fro space which was so much better for man than the war for mens’ minds.

Today I am older. The world of satellites is more crowded and accessible. I lead up to how much I love Google Earth as I soar over the planet or peer down into secret spots, loved spots and nostalgia. If only it was as sharp as the pictures in Men In Black but that will come in Web 3.0

This is where I live. Bacalar, Mexico. If I leave this disappearing jungle outpost it would probably be for South Florida. So this is the picture of my world.

Mexico
Science

Take note of this message from Tell An American To Vote.com

7 Myths About Overseas Voting

Myth #1: “Americans don’t vote again until 2008.”
WRONG. Americans go to the polls on November 7, 2006 for what we call “mid-term elections”. All 435 seats in the House of Representatives and one-third of the Senate (33 seats) are up for election. For US citizens living abroad, it is important to request an absentee ballot as soon as possible to allow for processing time and international post.

Myth #2: “I can’t vote. I don’t have a US address anymore.”
WRONG. Regardless how long you have lived outside the country, you always retain the right to vote in US Federal elections. Your legal voting address is the last place you resided prior to departing the US. (If you have never lived in the US, many states will allow you to vote using the legal voting address of one of your American parents. Check with local authorities.)

Myth #3: “I don’t need to register. I already did it last time.”
WRONG. Voters living abroad should mail in a ballot request every election year. Yes, there is a recent Federal law stating that a single ballot request should be valid for four years. And there are some exceptions, like California which permits “permanent absentee” registration. But, don’t forget that our votes are administered by 3,000 different local authorities across the country, each with its own understanding of the law. Better safe than sorry - send a new ballot request each election year!

Myth #4: “They don’t even count overseas ballots.”
WRONG. Absolutely 100% false. By law, every properly executed absentee ballot must be counted before a final vote count can be certified. However, if the number of outstanding ballots - overseas or otherwise - is smaller than the difference between two candidates, a winner may be called before every last vote has been tallied. But all outstanding ballots are counted before the election result is certified.

Myth #5: “One vote can’t make a difference.”
WRONG. Just look at recent election results. Florida 2000: George W. Bush wins the state by a margin of 537 votes. Washington 2004: Democrat Christine Gregoire becomes Governor by just 127 votes. Ohio 2006: The race for a seat on the Erie County Democratic Committee ends in a dead tie!

Myth #6: “If I vote, the IRS will hassle me.”
WRONG. Voting in US Federal elections does not affect the determination of tax residence. You will not hear from the IRS because you voted in a Federal election, i.e. President, Senate, or House of Representatives. (Note: Voting in state and local elections can potentially affect state and local tax status. We recommend that you seek expert advice before voting in state or local elections.)

Myth #7: “Voting from abroad is so complicated.”
WRONG. This used to be true! But now, US citizens can complete the entire process of requesting an absentee ballot - and spread the word to friends and colleagues! - in just two minutes flat. Find out how at www.TellAnAmericanToVote.com.
–
In November, US citizens will be electing:
33 senators
36 governors
and 435 members of the House of Representatives.

Voting from abroad means thinking ahead!

The site will help with obtaining absentee ballots from the state and county where you last resided.

Politics

Chocolate lovers are finding that their insidious but tasty addiction could actually be … good for them! Pull up a cup of cocoa and a chocolate pie with dark chocolate wedges sticking up from the crust and get healthy.

It may not be that easy or that tasty. Rich ice cream with candy bits in it from those two hippie fellows might not make the medical grade but the latest research from Italy does show healthful benefits from chocolate. The study shows that a certain kind of chocolate does increase arterial blood flow.

We may be surprised that something that tastes so good is actually good for you. We should not be surprised that the Italians have found it out. Italy is the place to discover chocolate. I had a pretty and stylish young friend from Milano who used to bring me back chocolate balls of rich, dark chocolate with a liquid center of espresso coffee whenever she went home to visit. Nirvana.

There are also the memories of Ferrara’s in Little Italy, New York visited after gallerie-hopping and dinner in Chinatown. It was worth the line to get to pick and choose from the lavish and rich selection of pastries. Chocolate hangs in the memory, an addiction far deeper than anything except tobacco which will never be found to be good for you.

The study, titled “Cocoa beans, endothelial function and aging: an unexpected friendship?” was done at the Dipartimento di Medicina Interna e Sanità Pubblica, Università di L’Aquila, L’Aquila, Italy. A highly readable report was in the New York Times in an article by Nicholas Bakalar on 15 August entitled, “Circulation: Blood Flow Improves With New Mix of Cocoa”. The authors of the study, Dr. Naomi D. L. Fisher, the lead author and her co-author Dr. Norman K. Hollenberg published in the Journal of Hypertension in August. Please note, however, that the study was supported by Mars. Inc. who also supplied the cocoa.

Doctors Fisher and Hollenberg saw a “…significant increase in flow-mediated dilation, as measured by finger tonometry, in 15 healthy individuals aged
The cocoa used for the test was not the usually available chocolate or cocoa drink which is usually processed to a point where the flavonols are no longer present. These flavonols are a class of flavonoids which include
wine, tea, vegetable and tea components that appear to be responsible for creating cardiovascular benefits. Along with chocolate the flavonols are also effectively beneficial from flavonol-rich, purple grape juice and from drinking tea (today’s news mentioned new findings on the benefits of green tea),

The study notes that “Several substances are naturally contained in the cocoa bean and may be responsible for the observed potentiation in nitric oxide-dependent vasorelaxation.” That is to say that the results of eating and drinking these flavonol-rich substances (cocoa, tea, grape juice) act in a way that is similar to taking nitro-glycerine. They relax the arteries which allows them to pass more blood to the organs – especially the heart.

Each of the subjects drank a quart a day of a sweetened, non-confectionary cocoa from which the flavonols had not been processed. They showed a marked increase in arterial function but the older people showed far more improvement. The authors note that further tests on far larger numbers of subjects are needed. In medicalese the report states that,

the intriguing findings provided by Fisher and Hollenberg [1] suggest that cocoa can significantly improve nitric oxide bioavailability in healthy individuals, particularly after 50 years of age. More generally, because the risk for developing atherosclerosis in industrialized countries has been suggested to be linked to the endothelial dysfunction, their study also suggests that changes in dietary habitudes could be of help in preserving nitric oxide bioavailability, thereby blunting the onset of age-related atherosclerotic lesions.

Sifting the jargon we find that cocoa is good for healthy people – especially over 50 – and changes in diet could delay artery blockages (therefore heart attack and related problems). The condition they wisely add to the end of the study that “… cocoa-derived foods are known to be very tasty, pleasant, and their use may often be followed by mood elevation …”. That is a fact. It tastes good to most people and makes them happy. George Bush, the elder, may have dis-liked broccoli but we never heard him complain about chocolate. However, they write, “ based on the growing pandemic explosion of obesity in children, as well as in young, middle-aged and older adults, we should be very careful in recommending cocoa ingestion to our patients, at least until, large-scale trials and measures in both younger and older populations become available.”

The distinction is also clearly made that flavonol-rich cocoa and many commercial products that seem to be chocolate are really low in both cocoa and flavolols.

So, kids (of all ages) don’t eat a cheap chocolate candy bar or confection and say Howard says it’s good for you. Have a cup of good cocoa. I can attest that it will be more fun than a nitro-glycerine tablet under the tongue. Don’t get fat. Healthy arteries carrying around too much weight won’t stay healthy long.

Health
Chocolate

S.D.S. is not a radical group from the Sixties. They gave good parties and I enjoyed them but this is about Sudden Death Syndrome.

This is about staying alive. People with known cardiac problems are most affected. However, cardiac arrest happens to others as well. You are alive and then you are not.

I follow articles about such depressing topics because I suffer CHF (congestive heart failure) and, they like to tell me, I am extreme risk for SDS. They put an automatic defibrillator (with other junk) in my chest saying “… because you live in the jungle…”

However, I am not alone. People with previously known cardiac problems – heart attack, angina, rhythm disturbances, etc.– are at risk. People with high risk factors – age, smoking, obesity, and other “life-style” problems also run a risk. And people (both sexes)face the risk that hidden problems might surface.

This week, though, a new report takes some of the fear away. It does not suggest that there is less possibility of cardiac arrest. The study shows that more warning signs appear before “sudden” death arrives. There is often time to get help.

This is another of my pleas for people to be aware of the dangers and aware that rapid action absolutely, positively, truly, really, definitely, incredibly and without a doubt can save lives. Even yours.

WebMD reported on 8 September that “People May Have Symptoms 2 Hours Before Cardiac Arrest”. They reported on a new study that showed signs of cardiac arrest begin, on average, two hours before the actual attack. It also says that up to two-thirds of the victims have a history of heart disease. The symptoms of chest pain (angina) and breathlessness (shortness of breath – known to paramedics as S.O.B.) are often recognizable and could provide a chance to get help before it is too late.

“Our study suggests that shifting the focus to educating high-risk patients and families may lead to earlier recognition, a quicker call to the emergency medical system (EMS), a higher percentage of bystander CPR [cardio pulmonary resuscitation], and thus to a higher probability of survival in patients with sudden cardiac death,” says researcher Dirk Muller, MD, PhD, of the University of Berlin, in a news release.

The American Heart Association reports that over 300,000 people die yearly from heart disease – usually as a result of cardiac arrest. They die before the get to the hospital, at home or in the emergency room.

The Berlin study that was quoted used 406 cases of cardiac arrest out of about 5000 responses for emergency medical treatment by a “mobile intensive care unit”. Seventy-two percent of the cases happened at home. The most common sign of impending attack was angina (chest pain) that lasted from 20 minutes to 10 hours. Furthermore 106 of 352 had a cardiac history and 16 had previously suffered cardiac arrest. There was a median period of chest pain of two hours prior to cardiac arrest. I know first-hand how easy it is to deny horrible fears and ignore warning signs. I did it with the heart attack. But fast action without fear of embarrassment or ridicule is of the utmost necessity.

Other indicators were breathlessness in 17% of the people studied for during at least 10 minutes prior to the attack and 7% showed nausea and vomiting for 90 minutes. In much of America medical help is within 10 to 20 minutes and in cities it might be even quicker. Don’t wait to see if you can make a deal with God — “Just let this be indigestion and I’ll be so good…”. Cardiac arrest happens far more often than the gods make deals with mortals.

Many attacks happen in front of others. In 57 cases in the study, “bystanders” administered CPR. 13 of the people survived (23%). Where CPR or other life-saving techniques were not given, 4% survived.

Dirk Muller, the doctor running the study at the U. of Berlin wrote in the Journal of the American Medical Association that “Training and prevention efforts should be focused on how to recognize the emergency, CPR training, and automated external defibrillator (AED) use.”

After my heart attack in 1994 a much younger friend – probably about 30 to my 47 – suffered chest pains during a heavy-duty basketball game. Knowing him, it was probably with his brothers and filled with sibling rivalry. He went to the emergency room where he was told it was only too much exertion. The brothers teased him unmercifully.

I didn’t. A little teasing is far better than death or 12 years of living with severe limitations and pain.

If you are at risk and know it or if you suffer from chest pain, breathlessness beyond what is normal for you, if you think that you are having a heart attack; do not think too long, make any deal with God, hide under the covers or have another cigarette. Call your doctor or dial 911.

Health

“Liberty” Memphis, TN. ©Beringer-Dratch.

Our system, many seem to forget, is a marvel of checks and balances. Perhaps it was a reflection of the growing Industrial Revolution where machines were becoming more functional. The Framers of the Constitution wrote into their version of levers and pulleys, buttons and bells and whistles. The President has great, administrative power. The Congress speaks for the people (and theoretically an ear for their needs) and the Judiciary watches over everything so that no one goes off on wild and dangerous tangents — especially in times of stress.

In the Federal District Court of Eastern Michigan, Judge Anna Diggs Taylor just wrote the opinion in the case of the

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION; AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION; AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF MICHIGAN; COUNCIL ON AMERICAN-ISLAMIC RELATIONS; COUNCIL ON AMERICAN ISLAMIC RELATIONS MICHIGAN; GREENPEACE, INC.; NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYERS; JAMES BAMFORD; LARRY DIAMOND; CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS; TARA MCKELVEY; and BARNETT R. RUBIN

versus

NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY / CENTRAL SECURITY SERVICE; and LIEUTENANT GENERAL KEITH B. ALEXANDER, in his official capacity as Director of the National Security Agency and Chief of the Central Security Service.

A PDF download of the entire case is available and fascinating. The case number is 06-10204

Judge Anna Diggs Taylor is 73 and was the first African-American woman to serve on the District Court in the Michigan district, the first to be chief federal judge. She attended Barnard and Yale Law School. She is not a judicial force to be ignored.

She, Judge Diggs Taylor, begins the opinion identifying the action as “a challenge” to a secret organization in the government she will call TSP which was “undoubtedly” set up by the N.S.A. (the National Security Administration) by the year 2002, which “… intercepts without benefit of warrant or other judicial approval, prior or subsequent, the international telephone and internet communications of numerous persons and organizations…” and which continues into the present day. The secret government group was “… authorized by the President’s secret order during 2002 and reauthorized at least thirty times since.”

The plaintiffs are groups and individuals who regularly communicate with others on an international basis by telephone and internet “… for various uncontestedly legitimate reasons including journalism, the practice of law, and scholarship.” These people have reason to think that the U.S. government is routinely intercepting their private communications. They are, by the government’s admission, “U.S. persons”.

Plaintiffs have alleged that the TSP violates their free speech and associational rights, as guaranteed by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution; their privacy rights, as guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution; the principle of the Separation of Powers because the TSP has been authorized by the President in excess of his Executive Power under Article II of the United States Constitution, and that it specifically violates the statutory limitations placed upon such interceptions by the Congress in FISA because it is conducted without observation of any of the procedures required by law, either statutory or Constitutional.

We may not be surprised to learn that the government’s defense was primarily based on “national security” and on the concept of “state’s secrets privilege”. These concepts have been upheld often since the Civil War (the Southerners’ “War Between The States”) in a landmark case (Totten v. United States) where Totten sued the government to pay for spy services he did for them during the War. The courts ruled for the government because “The secrecy which such contracts impose precludes any action for their enforcement.” This rule kept people from suing for defective war planes in WWII and for Viet Nam era suits against the C.I.A. because “… It is self-evident that the disclosures sought here pose a “reasonable danger” to the diplomatic and military interests of the United States.”

Then came Ellsberg v. Mitchell where the court noted the “absolute” nature of the secrets defense but very carefully pointed out that,

However, because of the broad sweep of the privilege, the Supreme Court has made clear that “[i]t is not to be lightly invoked.” Thus, the privilege may not be used to shield any material not strictly necessary to prevent injury to national security…

In this case the government used, as part of its’ defense, that they could not defend themselves because any defense would force the disclosure of state secrets. Judge Diggs Taylor didn’t go against the secrets rule. She distinguished the fact that these plaintiffs were not asking for any further investigation which might uncover state secrets. Their suit was based only on what the government had readily admitted,

Defendants have publicly admitted to the following: (1) the TSP exists; (2) it operates without warrants; (3) it targets communications where one party to the communication is outside the United States, and the government has a reasonable basis to conclude that one party to the communication is a member of al Qaeda, affiliated with al Qaeda, or a member of an organization affiliated with al Qaeda, or working in support of al Qaeda.

The people suing to be able to communicate freely contend that, as journalists, lawyers and scholars (like scholars and journalists, Tara McKelvey, Larry Diamond, and Barnett Rubin) must be allowed to talk or write privately to sources, clients and contacts who could be terrorist suspects. The judge wrote that “… . It was never the intent of the Framers to give the President such unfettered control, particularly where his actions blatantly disregard the parameters clearly enumerated in the Bill of
Rights. She reminds us that the courts exist for the purpose of checking and balancing the powers of government and that “… It is within the court’s duty to ensure that power is never “condense[d] … into a single branch of government.” We must always be mindful that “[w]hen the President takes official action, the Court has the authority to determine whether he has acted within the law.” “It remains one of the most vital functions of this Court to police with care the separation of the governing powers . . . . When structure fails, liberty is always in peril.”

George Bush brought us warrantless wiretapping (note the “warrantless”) and therefore must face the Fourth Amendment,

The right the of people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

In the two-page “Judgment and Permanent Injunction” Judge Diggs orders very specifically that “IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants, its agents, employees, representatives, and any other persons or entities in active concert or participation with Defendants, are permanently enjoined from directly or indirectly utilizing the Terrorist Surveillance Program in any way…” and “… IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND DECLARED that the TSP violates the Separation of Powers doctrine, the Administrative Procedures Act, the First and Fourth Amendments to the United States Constitution…”

The judge is to the point (for a lawyer), organized and very direct. She has separated this case from others because we are not dealing with terrorists nor foreigners, because the Feds tried to hide behind the tired “national security” line and because real people doing real work for valid reasons were being hurt by a Presidential power play that has been allowed in the terror and fears of the past years.

Here in Blogcritics John Bambenek in “Federal Court Rules Protecting America is Unconstitutional” lets us know his orientation in the headline. This “ongoing deception”, he wrote, “… is an attempt to create hysteria that the US is becoming a “police state” and that the treats are from Republicans, not terrorists.” Judge Diggs, who just may have noticed that this is one of those opinions that is not going to be ignored during her career, did not, at any time, write or describe the case or plaintiffs in this light.

He goes on to say that “… the idea that plotting terror attacks against the citizens of the United States of America could even possible be protected by the First Amendment should make everyone who cares about the safety of their family cringe.” It sure would. However, the decision has to do with the fact that our own government is flaunting its’ power to pry into anyone’s life whether or not they are terrorists and without the required procedures and then hiding behind the specter of more murderous violence. I, for one, cannot condone either wanton murder and destruction nor the abuse of power within our fragile island of civilization in an increasingly violent world.

Mark Schannon writes in “Judge Rules Bush Domestic Wiretap Program Violates Civil Rights” a more reasonable opinion (which is to say he agrees with me and Judge Diggs).

Do I think that we absolutely must infiltrate, monitor, find and stop or destroy any terrorists who threaten Americans or America? Brother, believe it! My wife lost her leg to an anti-American gang here in our expatriate paradise (which is another story). Intelligence is going to be the deciding factor in the war against the barbarians at our gates. Even that will not be enough. As Israel has found out, this is a new century with new rules, old enemies with undiscovered strengths. We have to believe in all-out war and the burning desire of the enemy to burn down our civilization. Another group wants to raise another grey, dismal autocracy that would control the minds of men (and women if they allow them to have minds).

However — and this is a huge “however” — we cannot lose touch with the free society under a brilliant and flexible Constitution. It changes with the times but it cannot be allowed to move so far that individual rights are stomped by either mobs or faceless g-men.

Current Affairs
Law

How many places of beauty — places and cities of near-paradise can this earth afford to lose?

Fox news on line quotes the AP in an article, Roadside Bomb Kills 18 Sri Lanka Troops. In Colombo, reported on 11 August that,

A roadside bomb exploded near a military truck Monday night in northeastern Sri Lanka, killing 18 soldiers, security officials said as a senior rebel leader declared the country’s cease-fire “null and void.”

Tamil Tiger rebels and government soldiers also traded artillery shells and gunfire as the air force struck insurgent positions, killing at least 46 fighters, the army said.

.

Photo from CIA area studies.

Sri Lanka! Yet another paradise is under fire. Beirut suffers because it harbored yet more vicious terrorists and one report at the beginning of the Isreali defense efforts noted that sunbathers had to pack up and leave the Haifa area.

Sarajevo is no longer the other Paris of the Mediterranean. The Balkans reverted to their turn-of-the-century games of “ethnic cleansing” and war. Anti-semitism is popular again (or still) in Europe — and even in Malibu. Who knows, perhaps the Stanz and Chechnya had beautiful places before they decided killing was more fun than swimming and sun-bathing.

How dare the world target some of its most beautiful locations for violent games. Beirut was the Paris of the Middle East until the 1070s when civil war destroyed its cosmopolitan attractiveness.

Here in Mexico we moved to the shore of Laguna Bacalar for its’ beauty, charm and tranquility 9 years ago. Now the beauty remains. Violence, crime and development threaten its’ future (although the government has moved in more police and security to counter the problems).

Photo ©Beringer-Dratch.

Current Affairs
Travel

The recent article on Blogcritics and here, “Air Force Targets The Blogosphere For Warfare” has been chosen an Editors’ Pick for the week of July 5 through July 11.