23 April 2012

Update no.540


Update from the Heartland
No.540
16.4.12 – 22.4.12
Blog version:  http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,

OK, indulge me . . .  it is proud grandfather time:
“Rose Hill rallies, tops Mavericks”
by Lionel Tipton / Eagle correspondent
http://www.varsitykansas.com
Published April 17 at 6:12 a.m. | Last updated April 17 at 6:12 a.m.
There is a great pic of Granddaughter Aspen Shae accompanying the story.  Aspen’s team lost 1-2, but it is always a genuine treat to watch her perform; and, she made the headline photograph.  On top of that, she had her first prom Saturday night.  They grow up so fast!

On Sunday, we took Grandson Jack to the Kansas Cosmosphere & Space Center in Hutchinson, Kansas, to see the new IMAX movie Air Racers, about the National Championship Air Races and Air Show at Reno Stead Aerodrome, Reno, Nevada.  For those not familiar with the Cosmosphere, the screen is a 44-foot dome for 70mm IMAX projection and through-screen, stereo, surround sound – very impressive – especially for a movie of this nature.  The photography was quite good; although the editing was a little too choppy for me liking.  I wanted to see a better depiction of sheer speed and power inherent in the Unlimited race.  I did notice a single brief flash glimpse of Galloping Ghost,” the highly modified P-51 pylon racer that crashed into the main grandstand last year [509/510].  For those readers who enjoy flying machines, I recommend the movie.

The follow-up news items:
-- Update on tornado damage [539].  The damage to the Spirit Aerospace hangers on the Westside of McConnell Air Force Base was far more substantial than initially reported.  Also, when I got to work on Monday, we had a major skylight torn in the roof of the company’s final assembly building.  Our roof and other damage were repaired by the end of the week.  Public reports indicate Spirit will be back in business with temporary repairs on Monday.  The residential property damage will not be so quick to fix.

The village of Fucking, Upper Austria State, Republic of Austria, has endured the unwanted attention of English-speaking people since the village achieved general public awareness after World War II.  The Telegraph of London reported that the village is considering a referendum for a name change all because so many English-speaking people snicker and giggle over names that carry sexual connotation.  Very sad to me!  When are we going to grow up?

In the ensuing conflagration from the Secret Service / DoD prostitution event at the Hotel Caribe in Cartagena, Bolivar Department, Republic of Colombia, it is truly sad and embarrassing that Colombia has more progressive and reasonable laws regarding prostitution than the United States of America.  To me, the public condemnation of the Secret Service agents is not particularly different from the unwanted attention garnered by the Austrian village of Fucking (above).  Because prostitution is illegal and socially contemptible in the United States, a half-dozen Secret Service agents and eventually military personnel will pay an extraordinary penalty.  The security risk comes not from prostitution but rather our moral disapproval of the profession.  Nonetheless, those agents demonstrated incredibly poor judgment.  Their mission was as the advance team for the President’s participation in the Summit of the Americas.  They succeeded, but they ultimately failed, bringing attention to themselves.

The President of Sudan Omar al-Bashir declared war on South Sudan and demanded South Sudanese forces withdraw from their occupation of the 60,000-barrels-a-day Heglig oil field.  Both countries continue to ignore calls to end the fighting. The United Nations Security Council is considering sanctions on both countries in an attempt to end the violence.

Apparently, this is the week of sex.
“Birth Control and Teenage Pregnancy”
Editorial
New York Times
Published: April 18, 2012
and
“Not Quite a Teen, Yet Sold for Sex”
by Nicholas D. Kristopf, Op-Ed Columnist
New York Times
Published: April 18, 2012
The social conservative assault on childhood sex education began with the passage of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 [PL 97-35; 95 Stat. 357; 13.August.1981], which included Title IX, Subtitle G, §955(a) [95 Stat. 578] – the progenitor of the abstinence-only sex education program [510] – that amended the Public Health Service Act (PHSA) [PL 78-410; 58 Stat. 682; 1.7.1944].  Somehow, the social conservatives in Congress gathered sufficient support to pass Federal laws and programs to keep children ignorant rather than teach them about an important part of life.  When children are not taught properly, they have very little upon which to make good decisions, and often, if not inevitably, they rely upon peers, which is usually not the most reliable source of sexual or relationship information.  As noted in the editorial, the presumed Republican Party candidate for President seeks to repeal the Population Research and Voluntary Family Planning Programs of 1970 [PL 91-572; 84 Stat. 1504; 24.December.1970] that added Title X [84 Stat. 1506] to the PHSA.  I suppose the objective is to head back to the good ol’ days of the Victorian era.  Oh yea!

Interesting observations:
“The Future of Sex? 5 Trends That May Completely Transform Our Sex Lives – Pornography, prostitution, online sex -- in the future, it's all one thing. But is it a better thing?”
by Emily Empel
AlterNet.org
Posted: April 18, 2012
1. The commercial sex industry will expand the definition of sex. 
2. Tech innovations will raise the intimacy level of commercial sex. 
3. Commercial sex will converge with pop-tech. 
4. Sex work will be dependent on region. 
5. Mainstream organizations will realize the economic value of commercial sex. 
 . . . for our rumination and cogitation.

“Is Prostitution Safer When It’s Legal?”
Room for Debate
New York Times
Updated: April 20, 2012; 9:18 AM
I missed the on-line debate, but there are sufficient written supporting articles for the broader public debate.  Your contributions to the discussion are always appreciated.

My review of the Supreme Court’s recent Perry v. Perez, [565 U.S. ___ (2012); no 11-713] ruling [528] regarding electoral reapportionment led me into a series of historical cases – the latest being Baker v. Carr [369 U.S. 186 (1962); no. 6].  Associate Justice John Marshall Harlan II said, “[T]here is nothing in the Federal Constitution to prevent a State, acting not irrationally, from choosing any electoral legislative structure it thinks best suited to the interests, temper, and customs of its people.” In essence, Harlan’s reasoning supported grossly unequal representation as long as the state had an asserted reason for doing so.  The statement in the context of the 1962 Baker decision struck me as the epitome of our on-going debate with respect to judicial activism.  To the strict constructionists, there is not one mention of one person, one vote, or equality of representation.  They argue that by virtue of the paucity of reference and the 10th Amendment, electoral apportionment is the sole domain of the respective states.  To the progressives, it is the combination of the Constitution’s Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 (decennial census), Article IV, Section 4 (republican government), 14th Amendment (Equal Protection Clause), and the opening words of the Preamble – We, the People – that command one person, one vote for the House of Representatives.  As I often do, I take a presented logic to the extreme to appreciate the ramifications, especially if there is no qualification or constraint on the application.  Using Harlan’s argument, Jim Crow would still be alive and well.  Fortunately, for all of us, the Supreme Court eventually saw a citizen’s rights in greater measure.

Comments and contributions from Update no.539:
Subject: Re: Update no.539
From: "Darren Via Smart Phone"
Date: Mon, April 16, 2012 8:53 am
To: "cap"
“Thank you for the update and so pleased to read you, your family plus friends are okay.  I was concerned since Sunday night for you since the NBC news depicted the damage in your area.  Scary I bet.  Strange that early Tuesday (last week), I had an intense dream about a tornado near, while I was in a cafe here in San Diego.  Our chance for quake is much higher, tho we have had tornadoes, but not destructive.  Waterspouts have been more common.  I am hoping your area is clearing soon (wx). 
Stay safe Cap and keep us updated.
Thanks.  Darren
My reply:
Darren,
            Thx for yr generous words.  “I will freely confess of fair amount of apprehension.  When I made the decision to make a run for home, the Weather Service was reporting the tornado as ¾ of a mile wide and boresighted on downtown, which is where the wedding reception was being held.  I’ve seen tornados in California, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Virginia, Maryland, and of course Kansas.  I studied the mechanism of the atmospheric phenomenon in graduate school.  Weather is great today; I rode the bike into work.”  Again, thx for yr kind words.
Cheers,
Cap

Comment to the Blog:
“While I disagree with Mr. Hiatt’s notion that we should be insistently spreading American-style around the world over the objections of those we think should welcome it, he does share one point with me. He states that, ‘Regimes that spit on the rule of law at home may not be reliable partners in creating a rule of law across borders.’ I have recently published an essay series on ‘Decay of the Rule of Law in America.’ One of the results of our excusing law breaking in high officials and their collaborators is the hypocritical spectacle of Obama and his predecessors condemning that behavior in other countries even while they depend upon it to stay out of jail. Think of Ford’s pardon of Nixon, Daddy Bush’s conduct in the Iran-Contra scandal, Clinton and Sonny Bush’s telecom and other scandals. We have yet to find out what offenses Obama may have committed, but Attorney General Holder has stated (in different words but with clear meaning) that the Obama Administration does not prosecute criminals from prior administrations for fear they might be prosecuted for their own offenses in a future administration.
“I believe you need to study addiction in far more depth before you make broad statements about it. So does George Will. His figure for the cost of prison is common and reasonably accurate. My guess would be that his 80:20 ratio for consumption would hold up for marijuana but probably not for other drugs. My issue with Mr. Will is that he draws completely unwarranted assumptions from his figures. I will note that he still makes no concrete proposal, although he has used up another essay pointing out the failures of the current attempt at Prohibition. This time he threw in a shot at medical marijuana. While these laws are no doubt abused due to the hypocrisy inherent in prohibition, a reasonable number and variety of studies have shown that marijuana can indeed have a genuine medical benefit.
“Cap, you would be considered an oddity in most circles of debate. You support several progressive causes, but you also seem to believe that the military and the ‘intelligence’ community should be allowed to do as they please in the name of the ‘war on terrorism.’
“I could not tell exactly what in that second article on the incestuous German brother that brought you to the point of writing. The article seemed to give a fairly broad range of opinions. My opinion of incest is that society needs to undertake a very long and thorough examination of the subject. As you did, I also noted the assumptions of abuse, and the article does not point out that such assumptions arise in the absence of knowledge. We do know, however, that children of such unions have a higher chance of genetic illnesses. If we must regulate incest, perhaps such regulation should favor birth control rather than invade bedrooms”
My response to the Blog:
Calvin,
            Re: Rule of Law.  An interesting premise!  I am not one of those who claims or even suggests that American republican democracy is perfect.  The rest is just opinion.  I’ll let that stand.  I am interested in reading your essay.
            Re: addiction.  I have thought about your statement and opinion since I read your contribution yesterday.  Perhaps you are correct that I should study addiction “in far more depth,” but I think not.  Frankly, I am not concerned about the addict or addiction; I’ve had too much direct experience.  I respect the addict’s right to make choices regarding his “Life, Liberty, and pursuit of Happiness” and not interfere with his choices.  My concern is solely to eliminate the collateral damage inflicted upon others by the addict’s obsession – everything from the crime it generates to the unconscionable intrusion and imposition upon our rights and freedom.  In a free society, prohibition against private behavior rarely, if ever, works.  We tried that with alcohol nearly a century ago with disastrous results.  We have endured horrific consequences in the so-called “war on drugs.”  We have tried to focus on the public effects of tobacco use rather than prohibition of private consumption – not entirely but close enough.  We have made a somewhat lame attempt at dealing with the public consequences of alcohol abuse without trying to prohibit private consumption.  It is public conduct and consequences that are my concern, which is precisely why I advocate for legalization and regulation of the morality “crimes” like prostitution, drugs, gambling, et cetera.  Let us focus on public conduct.  Let the individuals live their choices in peace . . . as long as they cause no harm to another living soul.  I accept that my ideas and concepts may not be well-informed or thoroughly researched, but even the most casual observer can recognize that what we have been doing for the last 40 years is not working and will never work.  At least I am trying to offer solutions, however lame they may be.  I do not support elements of Will’s opinion, but at least he is talking about the topic.
            Re: oddity.  Indeed!  Acknowledged!  The impression regarding the military and Intelligence Community is incorrect.  There are rules for everyone.  We are asking our Intelligence Community and military to wage war successfully in the War on Islamic Fascism; they must have the necessary tools commensurate with the modern battlefield.  I do not subscribe to the label “war on terrorism,” because terrorism is an instrument, like a gun, and a symptom; those tools do not cause men to do bad things; the fascism of a small segment of Islamic religious believers is the root cause of our present war.  I simply want us to win the present war.
            Re: incest.  I am with you.  I want a thorough, unemotional examination of an important topic that we want to pretend does not exist.  Further, we use certain words in a far too broad and indiscriminate manner, which in turn produces unwarranted, destructive consequences.  The Stübing case appears to be a most unusual outlier, but probably not unique.  We have discussed the use of the word “abuse” many times, and I’m sure we shall discuss it many more times before we are done.  Again, my point is we should focus on the public conduct, injury, consequences, and avoid the emotional content of broad, general, moral outrage.  I just advocate that we talk, we learn, we find solutions for real public issues.  The undeniable public issue is genetic consequences.  I also believe there is genuine injury to other people in such conduct.  Let us focus properly and avoid generalized accusations that in themselves are destructive.
 . . . round two:
Tue, April 17, 2012 9:59 pm
Cap,

I'll send you a link to the Rule of Law series privately if you like. I expect you will not like the series, though. It goes some way beyond stating that democracy is not perfect and it supports that position with evidence.

“I suspect that your ‘too much direct experience’ has led you astray with respect to addiction. We share the observation that Prohibition never worked and the desire to replace it with something that will limit the damage to society. However, first recognize the scope of the disease. All parties to this discussion are interested parties, but I found some handy figures. The Federal drug czar, Barry McCaffrey, gives an estimate of 3.6 million people addicted to illegal drugs (not including casual users). The National Institutes of Health figure for alcoholics (not social drinkers) is 17.6 million in the USA. Providing any kind of ‘isolation’ environment for 21.2 million people would break the national budget. Further traps await as you study the nature of this disease. Addicts do not want to be isolated from their families and friends, and the feeling is usually mutual whether or not that is rational. Now we have over 20 million families opposed to any such idea. There's more yet. Consider the effects of all this on the alcoholic beverage makers, distributors, bars, and retailers and on associated businesses such as casinos and restaurants. Social drinkers do business with all of those industries, but alcoholics spend a great deal more per person. Even the advertising industry would be affected. All of those industries will lobby against any such action, as will people who make staggering profits on illegal drugs.

“We have discussed the ‘war’ at too much length already. A military action without a measurable goal cannot be either won or lost but can certainly be used to achieve other less welcome goals. Historically, such actions have always been used to stop dissent in the home country.

“I doubt the Stübing case is a true outlier because of the existence of a sibling couple. I have known such a couple, not well. The brother-sister couple I knew, however, never had children. I imagine some number of others exist that are not known to outsiders. The German case becomes an outlier only because of Patrick Stübing's open willingness to defy society. We cannot know the rate of such relationships without the extensive study we both seek.”
 . . . my response to round two:
Calvin,
            First, please, send me to URL.  I would be happy to discuss outside the Update, if you wish.  I read a lot of things I do not like or agree with.  I need to hear all arguments.  I believe it was Sir Winston who said (paraphrasing), democracy is the worst form of government except when compared to all the others.
            Re: addiction.  I fully acknowledge that I may be “astray” or flat wrong.  At least, I’m trying to find a better way.  So, help me.  What is your proposal?  What are your ideas?  The status quo is NOT sustainable and there is no hope of success; we must do something different.  Next, I think and believe drug users are quite akin to alcohol or other substance consumers.  The casual or low-grade users function quite well in society; they lead fairly normal, productive lives.  I drink a glass or two of red wine at night on the weekends; by some definitions, I am an alcoholic.  Even if so, I am a functioning alcoholic; alcohol does not affect my public conduct, or cause injury to another person, or diminish my productivity.  I am not a threat to public safety or society.  Likewise, the casual or low-grade users of psychotropic substances are not threats either; yet, the current laws make those users criminals, some have been imprisoned or tainted for life.  Such mindless, destructive retribution is flat-ass wrong.  I do not dispute that addicts do not want to be “isolated.”  The key for us is their public conduct and injurious private behavior.  As long as they respect others, I am good with their consumption of psychotropic substances; it makes no nevermind to me.  The isolation camp is a voluntary place where they can consume to their heart’s content until they can consume no more.  If an addict chooses to reject the isolation camp and threatens another living soul, then they should and must face criminal sanction and prison.  We simply cannot tolerate collateral damage.  The isolation camp is simply a means to provide them what they seek in a safe environment, free from the pressures of acquisition.  I am even OK with enablers feeding and protecting the addict as long as he conducts himself properly in public and threatens no injury to anyone else.  Thus, the fraction who seek the benefits of an isolation camp would be small.  The fraction in prison would certainly be less than at present.  I truly believe the majority would be functional addicts, which again, I am quite comfortable with tolerating.  Again, I see no purpose in imprisonment for personal consumption, or even treatment for the untreatable; let the addict do what the addict wants to do as along as he causes no harm (to person or property).  Yes, I’m sure there are many who prefer the status quo, just as there were in the 1920’s – those whose livelihood depends upon the illegal trade.  Many of the illegals can be converted into legal merchants, once the trade is legalized and regulated.
            Re: war & dissent.  We share the same concern regarding the impact of warfighting on our civil liberties.  To me, the issue is not dissent or opposition, but rather the means chosen for that dissent.  Daniel Ellsberg’s crime was not his opposition to the war, but rather his betrayal of trust in exposing classified material.  Jane Fonda’s crime was not her dissent, but rather the method by which she chose to dissent.  I have long argued that a general’s choice is to carry-out his assignment to the best of his ability or to resign; he does not have the option of disclosing classified material or criticizing the commander-in-chief, period.
            Re: Stübing case.  Perhaps it is not an outlier; it just seems so to me, given the facts of the case.  Even by my liberal definition, Stübing committed a bona fide crime in that they produced children (2 of 4 have genetic infirmities, BTW).  If they had not produced children, I would have had no objection.  However, some of the publicly available data indicates his sister may not have been of sufficient mental and/or emotional capacity to freely choose the relationship; if so, then that would also be a violation even under my liberal definition.  My point was, I can no longer accept the moral objections often raised against such relationships.  The law is too broad, ill-defined, and indiscriminate, and as with most, if not all, morality laws, it causes far more damage than it ever protects genuine harm.
 . . . round three:
Thu, April 19, 2012 11:15 am
Cap,
My question is not whether democracy is the “best” form of government but whether we still operate as a democracy.
The estimate of 3.7 million addicts is quoted on this page and is for weekly users of heroin, crack and cocaine. (Crack is a form of cocaine. I do not know why the article treats them separately. The person who wrote this disputes the figure and is selling treatment and/or books.) My reading of that page makes it seem that he leaves out pill users and others besides the drugs named. The estimate of 17.6 million alcoholics comes from a National Institutes of Health page on the subject and clearly (by symptoms) excludes you and other social drinkers. None of my discussion has anything to do with true “recreational” users.
I see no more benefit from continuing the current situation than you do. I, along with most other advocates for legalization, favor legalization with essentially the same distribution and regulation basis as alcohol. You’re right; one substance is pretty much like another from a societal standpoint.
What else should we do? Probably, we could start with our best current remedy, in-patient treatment. Many addicts and alcoholics are uninsured. The only facility available to them in my area (Metropolitan Columbus, Ohio) has a waiting list that requires them to call every morning for three weeks or longer to see whether a bed is available. Very few active addicts are capable of that; most go untreated. We could divert a fraction of the money we waste on pursuing, trying and imprisoning these people into expanding the treatment system. Research into the neurology and biochemistry of alcoholism has begun to show some promise. Following up on that might be another good idea. Trying to control their actions by any means has yet to succeed except in the context you mentioned, where the issue becomes damage to others.
My comment about dissent has no bearing on the method of dissent. History shows that tyrants suppress all dissent regardless of the approach used by the dissenter.
 . . . my response to round three:
Calvin,
            Re: democracy.  Once again, it all comes down to definitions.  In my parlance, we have never been a democracy.  Citizens have no effect on government other than by vote for our representatives.  Several states are closer to democracies by virtue of their direct vote on constitutional and common law issues, e.g., PropH8 in CA.
            Re: addicts.  I do not exclude prescription meds; I’ve seen the effects and consequences.  Frankly, I also include nicotine and caffeine.  Plenty of chronic users are fully functional in society.  As long as they hold a job, pay for their substance(s) of choice without illegal activity, and do not threaten harm to person or property, I say live and let live.
            Re: in-patient treatment.  Without the addicts deep down gut & soul commitment to kick the habit, there is no such thing as successful treatment.  Rehab rarely works.  I want to know we have a reasonable shot at success, if we are going to use treasury funds for such things.  I cannot tolerate serial rehab . . . like some lame faux-demonstration commitment, only to be repeated over & over.  So, how do we determine who is committed to kickin’ it?  As stated previously, I make no judgment of the addict; I’m also quite liberal and willing to help those who genuinely seek help; I’d even use treasury funds to support his habit as long as he complies with my conditions; but, I have no compassion for the abuser who threatens harm to another soul or property.
            Re: dissent.  In a free society, in our society, the method is quite relevant.  Are you suggesting that we have tyrants?  If so, who and how so?
 . . . round four:
Thu, April 19, 2012 6:28 pm
Cap,

“No, I'm not quibbling about definitions. Call it a democracy, a representative republic, or the Land of the Free. None of those fits a nation where people may be monitored, imprisoned, or killed with no open legal process. Whatever explanation is given for those actions is meaningless if no outside authority can examine its truth or falsehood. Those possibilities cancel all other civil liberties.

“I did not exclude prescription addicts from this discussion; I simply explained that they were not included in the figure that I found. Finding accurate figures for prescription abuse would be a very difficult assignment. Including them would expand that 21.6 million figure. People addicted to caffeine and nicotine are indeed addicts, but they rarely cause the kind of direct damage seen in those addicted to alcohol and other drugs.

“I need to see your supporting research for your statement that ‘rehab rarely works.’ I have not done that research either, but I have at least a dozen friends and acquaintances who have been clean and sober for at least ten years beginning with a foundation of rehab.

“Yes, of course I'm suggesting we have tyrants. See the first paragraph above.”
 . . . my response to round four:
Calvin,
            Re: democracy.  I suspect you are falling victim to gross generalizations that we all do on occasion.  Are there reasons for concern, attentiveness, and critical review?  Yes, absolutely.  I urge us all to not lose sight of the broader perspective.  The Supremes have more than a few reviews of the extraordinary measures implemented in support of the government’s ability to wage war successfully in the War on Islamic Fascism.  A goodly portion of the laws were passed by Congress and signed by the President; and, we can change the laws.
            Re: addicts.  I did not suggest you excluded prescription drugs.  I simply noted that I include them in my opinions.  I do not know what fraction of the 21.6M would qualify in each of my suggested groups: functional, isolated, or imprisoned; I suspect the fractions are or should be largest to smallest, respectfully.  Sure, caffeine addiction does not generate substantial collateral damage, but still deserves not to be neglected.
            Re: rehab.  My bad!  I should have added the qualifier “unless the addict has convinced himself he must change” or some such.  My point is only the gut-level commitment of the addict to change will enable treatment to work, so let us not pretend addiction rehab is like surgery or a splint.  I also freely acknowledge that rehab works when the foundational conditions have been met.
            Re: tyrants.  I do not share your assessment.

Another contribution:
Subject: RE: Update no.539
From: "pa.gipson"
Date: Tue, April 17, 2012 1:14 pm
To: "cap"
Hi there Cap.
“I'm amazed how calm you sound about the Tornados! Such a malevolent weather example never crosses these shores. Although we did witness minor events in Cyprus.
“We heard of a town where the sirens failed and there was loss of life.  Sorry to hear that.”
Ann should be touching down at JFK in a short while, we hear the weather is
warm there, better than in England at the moment.
Regs Peter.
My reply:
Peter,
            Well, I suppose familiarity breeds calmness.  They are very finite storms, and our technology and predictive ability continue to grow.  In many ways, tornados are better storms to have than hurricanes, earthquakes, and such.
            Yes, Woodward, Oklahoma (just south of us) is the town to which you referred.  A previous, close-call tornado took out power to part of the town and the warning system.  The big one hit just about midnight, so without much warning.
   I hope Ann enjoys here visit in the Colonies – business or pleasure?
   Take care and enjoy, mate.
Cheers,
Cap

Tue, April 17, 2012 3:04 pm
Cap.
Pleasure mate, with her (our) daughter celebrating her 50th with her two
daughters. Ann has $400 in cash and her plastic so I think some shopping
will be on their list. But they want to visit Ellis Island and the
Guggenheim etc. They'll be busy! I'm back at Heathrow Monday 7am. I've
planned some DIY but the phone hasn't stopped...'come round for dinner/lunch
etc'. Aren't friends wonderful. Can't see me doing a lot of DIY! Ah well.
Cest la vie.
How's the health?
Yours Peter.

Peter,
   Excellent.  I hope they have a great time.  Lot’s to do in NYC.  Sounds like a whirlwind trip.
   LOL  DIY AKA the Honey-Do List.  Good luck.  Don’t over-do things.
   Health is progressing well.  Thx for asking.  I’m not quite back to 100% but damn close, and reality is I might not recover the last few points.  I chose longevity and only time shall tell that tale.
Take care and enjoy.
Cheers,
Cap

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

2 comments:

Calvin R said...

Cap,
That is indeed a nice picture of Aspen. If one is not paying attention, they go from arrival to adolescence to adulthood in the blink of an eye. Time flies.
I am glad that you and yours were not injured in the tornado. The property damage requires coping skills, but health matters more.
I “just don’t get” the Secret Service scandal. Certainly the agent(s) who participated in the loud argument that reportedly took place in an open-to-all hallway should be disciplined for their lack of discretion. Perhaps a supervisor should also be held accountable for not stopping or preventing that. Beyond those minor issues, the events that took place were ordinary and legal in their place and time. The locations of these actions did not contain sensitive information. An investigation of whether the payments came from the agents’ salaries or from expense (“government”) funds might be worthwhile, but almost any of us can find more important wastes of government money. There’s no news here.
Your linked article on birth control and teen pregnancy gives useful and relevant information. People who advocate against others having sex do not live in the real world. I did not understand the point of including the other article; you did not comment on it.
Of the “trends that may completely transform our sex lives,” I suspect the most important in the USA will prove to be the last listed, that mainstream organizations will recognize the economic value of commercial sex. Here as nowhere else, corporate interests influence social values. Witness the TV advertising for condoms and for new forms of KY products. Careful investigation of ownership might well reveal that this trend is already under way. “Big Mac” could get a whole new meaning.
As far as the discussion of prostitution, even just reading the headlines to which you linked convinces me that no parties listed are yet objective enough to conduct a rational discussion of whether legal prostitution is safer for the prostitutes. I would hazard a guess that legalization would improve safety for the customer due to requirements for registration, health inspection, etc. We need new voices to study actual results from Columbia, Spain, the Netherlands, and other places before we decide on the best way to go about changing our failed “prohibition” policy.
Mr. Justice Harlan seemed to think the political parties who make redistricting decisions would somehow operate in the interests of the people rather than of the political party. I have no idea where he got that notion; history had already proven him wrong over and over by the time he said that.
The other reason you should study addiction is to take yourself away from the concept that people are “rational actors,” making decisions in their own self-interest based on all of the available facts. You could also study history, sociology, psychology, or political science to disprove that notion.

Cap Parlier said...

Calvin,
A blink of the eye . . . indeed!

Re: Secret Service. Their agency title is the primary reason. They were on a mission. Exposure is an automatic detractor; in that sense, they failed. Aside from the compromised mission, too many Americans are offended by prostitution, which adds the titillating and prurient spices to the story. The reason I raised the point was the immaturity of our righteous indignation. The Press / public outrage is the prostitution aspect. My disapproval is their poor judgment in risking the mission. They should have recognized the potential for their activities to go sideways on them.

Re: childhood sex education. The point of including both opinions was simply the consequences of inadequate education. There are many reasons teenage girls become pregnant or get sucked into the sex trade. One of those reasons is little if any knowledge of sex and sexual relations, or recognizing the precursor signs. I believe many of these little tragedies could be avoided if teenage girls and boys understood.

Re: commercial sex. Agreed.

Re: prostitution (I suppose we can differentiate it from the larger commercial sex arena). I am not so sure Colombia, Spain, or the Netherlands are good examples as I see them as more legalization without regulation . . . that may well be a different kind of worse. At least they have tried to make things better, and for that we should study what works and what doesn’t work. There must be regulation to protect the providers and well as the customers, and prosecute those who violate the regulations or cause injury to others. To me, prohibition against private conduct is never going to be successful, if we expect to have a free society.

Re: Harlan. Precisely the point. His logic assumes good will by those in power, and we know all too well, flawed men are not always noble in their actions.

Re: addiction. I have never claimed addicts are “rational actors.” In fact, if I was asked, I would say addiction tends to be highly irrational. I believe my approach is to assume the worst case. The addict may not be able to make rational decisions regarding his course of action. Ultimately, if the addict is unable to make the correct choices, then he will most likely quickly progress to prison so that he cannot harm innocent people. Our compassion should give him choices until he convinces himself to seek treatment. Let’s get things out in the open where we can see them and deal with them properly. We must break the cycle with the criminal sub-culture. I want to respect the addict and allow him the freedom to do as he wishes, to respect his choices whether rational or irrational. Our only primary objective is to prevent the addict from harming other people or property. Once the primary objective is met AND the addict finally convinces himself he must change, then we can help him; failing the first, he does not reach the second. We have place making private decisions for any citizen, including addicts; our responsibility is to protect the public domain and innocent citizens. I hope all this makes some semblance of sense.

Thank you for your opinions. Keep ‘em comin’.
Cheers,
Cap