Update no.634

Update from the Heartland

No.634

3.2.14 – 9.2.14

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

To all,

The big news (for me) this week was the publication of the first two books in my To So Few series of historical novels (see Update 633A).  It has taken more than a decade to get the words published, but better late than never.  I must recognize and thank Saint Gaudens Press for their support and extra efforts to publish Book I (To So Few – In the Beginning) and Book II (To So Few – The Prelude).  The publisher wants the next book to be “The Clarity of Hindsight – The Words and Deeds of World War II” – a non-fiction, history book.  After I get Hindsight in the can, I will refresh Book III (provisionally titled: Explosion) for publication later this year and Book IV (provisionally titled: The Trial) for publication next year.  I am also deep into expansion of my research work for Book V and subsequent volumes.  If anyone chooses to read my newest books, I truly hope you enjoy them enough to recommend them to your family, friends, colleagues, acquaintances and social network “friends.”  If you do not like them and/or wish to offer constructive criticism, then by all means, tell me; I can always learn and improve.  Thank you for your patience, understanding and support.  FYI: the book cover images to the left are now active links to Amazon.com; all of my books are available on all eReaders – your choice.  I use an Apple iPad iBook reader that has become my primary reading instrument, as the ease of note taking is so efficient and precise – research made quite a bit friendlier.  If you have not made the jump to eReaders, I highly recommend the step; eReaders truly add to the reading experience.

Congress passed the Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act of 2013 (AKA Farm Bill) [PL 113-xxx; H.R.2642; Senate: 68-32-0-0(0); House: 251-166-0-14(4); 127 Stat. xxxx].  The massive, five-year, spending bill ends a three-year legislative slog to overcome both partisan and regional disputes, and to overhaul agriculture policy and food-stamp funding.  The bill has been presented to the President; he is expected to sign it; as of this Update, the presidential consent has not been publicly recorded.  There are a number of “terminates,” “prohibits,” and “reductions.”  However, there are an ample number of “establishes,” “creates,” “restores,” and “reauthorizes.”  Nonetheless, I smell pork, but I have not been able to clearly identify pork barrel spending; it is disguised well.

Attorney General Eric Holder announced his intension to issue a department policy memorandum that will extend the same protections historically afforded to heterosexual married couples, to same-sex couples who are legally married.  The action will cover all federal legal matters, including bankruptcy proceedings, prisoner visitation and death benefits for slain police officers.  He made the announcement in a speech to the Human Rights Campaign, a major gay-rights advocacy group, in New York City.  While I certainly support the result, as I say it is about time, I am not convinced this is the correct way to affect these equal rights changes in this Grand Republic.

News from the economic front:

-- The Labor Department reported U.S. payrolls increased by a seasonally adjusted 113,000 in January.  U.S. employment improved slightly as the December gains were revised up by 1,000 to 75,000, but was well below last year's average pace. The November increase was also revised upward by 33,000 to 274,000.  This is the second straight month of less than forecast jobs performance, which could heighten concerns about the economic recovery and could lead to calls for the Federal Reserve to soften its monetary policy.  The unemployment rate continued to creep down from 6.7% in December to 6.6% in January.

-- On 17.October.2013, President Obama signed into law the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2014 [PL 113-046; 127 Stat. 558] [618].  The law’s Division B, §1002(c)(1) [127 Stat. 567] suspended the Default Prevention Act of 2013 [S.1569, still not passed by Congress] and extended the debt limit to 7.February.2014.  Treasury Secretary Jack Lew said the government could stretch the country's borrowing authority, but those measures may not last past 27.February, as he urged Congress to extend the debt ceiling as soon as possible

-- The Chair of the European Central Bank’s Supervisory Board of the Single Supervisory Mechanism Danièle Nouy has suggested that some of the eurozone’s banks have no future and should be allowed to fail.  It is not clear whether Nouy includes the massive, international, “too big to fail” banks in her warning.  We can only hope she does and is prepared to carry out that conclusion.

Comments and contributions from Update no.633:

“Well said Cap.

“In an opinion piece this long, it's very unusual for me not to find something to disagree with - even if just on the margins.  Not so here.  Very well done.  There is no chance I'd make time to read the entire PRG- ICT report although every voter should.  Very much appreciate the overview.  In fact the entire UPDATE was evenhanded, articulate, easy to follow and (IMHO) right - on all counts.”

My reply:

            I read these things to understand what the USG is doing, as a concerned citizen of this Grand Republic.  Yet, and perhaps to me more importantly, I learn a little bit more about these United States and history.

   Thx for your contributions.

Cheers,

Cap

Comment to the Blog:

“I expect the prosecutors in the Boston Marathon bombing case to do their jobs well and the jury to make their best decision based on facts and law as presented to them. Assuming guilt is not a trait of the US legal system.

“Your discussion of the PRG-ICT report assumes that the Review Group did not know what they were doing. The description of the spy community's job as nearly impossible strikes me as reasonable and as an explanation for not seeking perfection. The rest of what you described proceeds from that.

“Once they relinquished that ideal of flawless operations, they proceeded to deal with reality. First of all, in an operation of this magnitude dealing with breakdowns of the data by group ought to be avoided where possible. Such separations complicate every data operation by creating walls that must be crossed to match data. Therefore, separation of US versus other citizens is best avoided. In actual functioning, that grants everyone equal rights.

“Secondly, if the perfectionist ideal cannot be met for the highest priority, the time comes to recognize other important factors, especially civil rights. I say again, we cannot separate one stated intention from another without transparency. Think back a moment to Richard Nixon's frequent and abusive use of the ‘national security’ claim. Nobody can be allowed free rein in these huge data warehouses. Claiming to support freedom for non-heterosexuals, recreational drug users, and sex workers conflicts with supporting ready unsupervised access to their communication data.

“Finally, if that figure of five million people with access to classified data comes near the real number, secrecy cannot be maintained. While privatized background checks add a conflict of interest to the situation (profit comes ahead of diligence), nobody of whatever background or motivation could reasonably be expected to catch everyone with either the intent or the potential to leak or sell information. That will not happen.

“We must conceive, formulate, and implement some other approach to national security. Secrecy is no longer possible.

“I did not listen to President Obama's State of the Union message this year. What he says varies from what he does.

“Your discussion of poverty shows lack of experience and/or education. Comparing people in the US to members of indigenous tribes in some unspecified other place is a screamingly obvious apples-to-oranges fallacy unworthy of further comment.

“I have no idea where you get the idea that a minimum-wage ditch digger would be able to “own his own home, have a TV, an iPhone, and an automobile” on $10.10 per hour. No chance. I made $17.52 an hour in 2007 and had no possibility of living like that in those easier times. Most of all, buying a mortgage was still well beyond my means. Any car less than five years old remained beyond my budget as well, and I have no expensive habits like smoking, drinking, or drugs. By the time my income fell to $9.00 an hour in 2012, I found myself unable to maintain any automobile even though I owed nothing on it and lived in a rough neighborhood in an apartment with serious problems. Also, claiming that a minimum-wage worker has “no job responsibilities” is false. People would not hire people to do nothing. In my experience, I have worked considerably harder for minimum wage than for higher pay.”

My response to the Blog:

            Re: Tsarnaev.  My opinion is just that . . . my opinion.  I am not a court, a judge or even a lawyer.  I shall not administer justice in the Tsarnaev case.  The court and a jury will determine his guilt and punishment, and I am fine with that.

            Re: PRG-ICT.  I did not intend to suggest or even imply the PRG-ICT “did not know what they were doing.”  I am suggesting they could have and should have offered us a more thorough perspective.  The PRG-ICT was composed of three law professors, a counter-terrorism bureaucrat, and a retired CIA deputy director.  In writing any document, the author(s) decide the tone of their document.  While I generally and broadly laud the PRG-ICT effort, I felt compelled to note the missing pieces.  The PRG-ICT report was a professional effort, although a little too politically biased for my liking; I like balance.

            Re: separation of citizens.  My point was the U.S. Constitution applies to U.S. citizens and those non-U.S. citizens within the jurisdiction of the Constitution.  Our law cannot be extended beyond our borders, except as it applies to U.S. citizens.  As I said, idealism is nice and sweet as a philosophical discussion point.  An enemy battlefield combatant does not have the same rights as a domestic citizen murderer.

            Re: perfectionist ideal.  Good point.  “Free rein,” “unlimited,” “uncontrolled,” “unregulated” . . . are always negative states in a free society.

            Re: secrecy.  All five million, security clearances do NOT have equal access.  The whole point for levels of clearance and Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI) is precisely to restrict access to only those with a bona fide need-to-know.  Secrecy is critical to useful intelligence.

            Re: poverty.  We have tried to discuss the question of poverty many times.  A little too literal with your criticism of my comparison.  The point is, the equation is quite simple . . . live within our means.  A minimum wage person cannot afford those things, yet so many people believe they are necessary implements of modern life.  Gosh darn it, I believe you are excessively extending my words.  I never said a minimum wage worker has no responsibilities; I said the inverse, if a worker has a low skill job with no responsibilities, such as a ditch digger, I think US$7.25 is overly generous.  I’m sure the ditch digger works very hard for his pay.  You did not answer my question: where do we draw the line? 

 . . . Round Two:

“My point about handling citizens of other countries in the same way as US citizens within the data operations was about efficiency and effectiveness, not about the Constitution. The lawyers can handle the legal issues after the prevention or investigation of terrorist acts. I'll mention again that “enemy combatants” refers to enemies who have not been defined and in any case the NSA spying is not a military issue in any direct sense.

“Say what you like, many people have sanctioned access to secret information. If only 1% of that five million people can handle ‘really’ sensitive information, that's still 50,000 humans, a tough number to screen in a comprehensive way. Screening remains imperfect, too. Probably someone would slip through, even in a very intensive screening environment.

“I have not extended your words in the least. In fact, in your reply you repeated the phrase ‘low skill worker with no responsibilities’ just as if you believe those people do not work. I still object and I object to your characterization of $7.25 per hour as ‘overly generous.’ It seems you have no idea of the cost of minimal living. Even in the rural low-rent place where I now find myself and even if we rashly assume full-time work, that is not enough for rent, food, necessary utilities including only water, sewer, heat, light and Internet, and work transportation particularly given the odd hours involved in many minimum-wage jobs. If you believe a person should not make a living from honest less-skilled work, who do you propose to do this work and how exactly should the less skilled make a living? Let us remember that some of these are people who cannot do college-level work. In any case, high-level jobs may go unfilled but not nearly enough of them exist to replace minimum-wage jobs. If society wants those jobs done, some way must exist for that to happen.”

 . . . my response to Round Two:

            Re: non-U.S. citizens.  As I said, it is a noble extension of constitutional rights . . . much like the Islamic practice of treating guests with respect and courtesy.  The PRG-ICT proposed to make such treatment the common law standard, which Congress can do under the Constitution.  I am not convinced that proposal is a wise choice.

            Re: “enemy combatant.”  We can always argue the definition, as Congress or the law has not yet offered a contemporary definition.

            Re: NSA.  It is a military issue in that the consequences of any changes or reforms could have profound impact on military operations.  The NSA has always been under DoD and sprang from the U.S. Army Signals Intelligence units; the DoD is a major customer.

            Re: security screening.  Good points.  Yet, the objective must remain zero leaks.

            Re: work.  I appreciate your sensitivity on this issue.  My opinion remains the same.  I never said or even implied that a “low skill work with no responsibilities” did not work.  The ditch digger works very hard.  I acknowledge and laud his labor.  He deserves to be paid a reasonable wage for his labor; yet, that job requires very little skill or training (just a strong back & arms) and he has no responsibilities – he just digs where he is told to dig.  You continue to avoid my root query; where do we draw the line?  What is a reasonable wage for a hard-working, low skilled worker?  What makes US$7.25 the correct number, or $10.10, or $20, or $1000 per hour?  We cannot buy someone out of poverty.  Yes, you are correct; I have never struggled in poverty, so I must bow to your experience.  Yet, the question still remains.  Perhaps the answer is a labor collective where necessary resources can be shared to minimize the fraction of income.  The only way out of poverty seems to me to be education (training; develop an in-demand skill).  Further, as we have seen with far too many low-income housing projects, far too many residents feel no responsibility to take care of their allotted space or collectively the area in which they live.  There comes a point where we must say, if you want to live in squalor, then you have a right to do so.

Postscript:

. . . I sent along this related opinion article:

Myth-making about economic inequality

By Robert J. Samuelson, Published: February 2

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/robert-samuelson-myth-making-about-economic-inequality/2014/02/02/4cda72ac-8a9a-11e3-a5bd-844629433ba3_story.html?wpisrc=nl_opinions

“Myth-making about economic inequality”

by Robert J. Samuelson,

Washington Post

Published: February 2 [2014]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/robert-samuelson-myth-making-about-economic-inequality/2014/02/02/4cda72ac-8a9a-11e3-a5bd-844629433ba3_story.html?wpisrc=nl_opinions

 . . . Round Three:

“We have reached the level of pointless repetition on most of this, so I will let those issues rest for this week.

“You heap empty praise on working people, then continue to claim he or she has no responsibility. I have dug literal ditches for an irrigation contractor. Do you think I was held responsible for the quality and quantity of that work? I was. You may need to define ‘responsibility’ in a way that others share to make sense of your statement. After that, you go on to combine the slippery slope fallacy with reductio ad absurdum to make a doubly wrong argument. That goes nowhere in finding a reasonable place to ‘draw the line,’ which you claim to want. Perhaps we could add up the costs of an apartment (at least one bedroom), heat, light, phone, food, and other resources that may be defined as necessary by reasonably objective experts. This issue has already been studied extensively, and the conclusion they find in common is that $7.25 an hour will not make even a single person self-supporting in any metropolitan area in the US. The amount needed varies considerably by metropolitan area but is at least $20,000 per year in most places. That amount comes pretty close to the yield of $10.10 x 2080 hours (standard year at 40 hours), which is $21,008. Remember, these studies do not suppose that one needs to own a house or a new car. They are about survival-level living.

“Education has always in the past been a method of getting out of poverty. While providing funds for education would helps people to some degree, it's not likely to happen and there's another issue. If we educated, let us say, 50% of minimum-wage workers for jobs that would actually exist at graduation, we would have many more workers than jobs in those sectors. Modern technology has reduced the absolute number of jobs available, and education will not change that. We would still have people working for minimum wage, but in the US they would have tens of thousands of dollars each in debt, as I myself do. Raising the minimum wage will at least let some working people get off of public assistance. (Many of the people on assistance have jobs but do not make a living from their wages. Walmart is notorious for this but it occurs in many jobs.)”

 . . . my response to Round Three:

            Re: work.  All work has value.  Not all work is valued the same.  To do so is the essence of communism, i.e., all work is equal, therefore all people are compensated equally.  The notion is an idealistic, eutopian concept.  What is missing is ambition, drive, reward, et cetera.  Those folks who determine compensation must at the root of the process determine the value of the work/services rendered.  Although their compensation is different, the ditch digger and billionaire should be treated with the same respect.  The issue of compensation is one of work value, not cost of living.  The choice of employment belongs to the employee; he decides if his work is reasonably compensated; if not, he finds other employment that values his skills.  The equation is not the other way around.

            Re: education.  We agree.  Education is the key.  There are a variety of ways of obtaining an education or valuable skills.  Paying for the education is one way.  Apprenticeship is another way.  Raising the minimum wage is another way. 

            You have offered reasons why we should pay more for minimum skill work.  We can throw money is any direction we wish.  However, you still have not answered the question: what is a reasonable wage for the lowest skill/responsibility level job?  Employment is about work, not about cost of living or social welfare. 

            This may seem harsh, but it is life.

 . . . Round Four:

“Your statement that, ‘The choice of employment belongs to the employee’ is patently false. It assumes equality of opportunity, ability, and understanding of the situation. None of those is true or close to true, particularly in the USA. On that statement rests your entire position.

“If education and health care were freely available we would come closer to equality of opportunity. They are not provided freely and opportunities are not equal.

“Mental, emotional, and physical ability vary greatly. Even if enough positions were available, not everyone has the ability to be highly skilled, strongly specialized for in-demand work or gifted in such fields as management.

“Also, that still does not account for an individual's youthful environment. He or she does not control that environment until adulthood, and by that time a person's assumptions and understandings about reality are essentially hard-wired. In much the same way Ayn Rand claimed that people seeking assistance from Social Security were weak of character until she herself needed help, other people's underlying assumptions about life change only with great difficulty and ordinarily under great stress. A great many people have assumptions left over from younger days that prevent them from freely choosing to be whatever would make them more money. Those assumptions cannot be changed easily or reliably.

“The whole addiction issue arises here, too. An enormous number of active addicts (including alcoholics) live in any given general population. Addicts do not have free choice in anything. (That one's been studied. I can provide any number of references for it.)

“The common American assumption that any child can (not may, but can) grow up to be President (or whatever position) is basically nonsense.”

 . . . my response to Round Four:

            Re: employment.  It is more a matter of perspective than patent falsehood.  Employment is not a right.  It is a mutual agreement between employer and employee – quid pro quo; in the exempt salaried domain, it is generally a “serve at the pleasure of” arrangement, and that relationship works both ways.

            Re: education & health care.  Yes, certainly.  They are freely available, but someone has to pay; so, if it is free, who pays the providers?  I could advocate for free education & health care; there are many logical reasons for the capability.  After all, I have advocated for and continue to argue for paying for drugs to eliminate the collateral damage of substance abuse.  However, as with most things, where do we draw the line?  Why not free food, free housing, free transportation, oh heck free life.  If everything is free, why work?  Heck, even in pure communism, workers are required to work for the State.  So, where do we draw the line?

            BTW, just an FYI, in Book III of my Anod novel series (not yet written), she arrives on Earth for the first time to learn how native humans have evolved.  The term I use today is “the Lottery Syndrome,” which the theory contends that 95% of folks would choose not to work, if they won the lottery.  Anyway, the conversation reminds me of that book concept.

            Re: skill.  You are of course spot on correct.  Not everyone has the aptitude for every job.  I have seen it in graphic demonstration in the flying biz.  The basic rule in my initial flight training was, if you vomit on a flight, you are given a medical review; if you vomit twice, you are removed from the pilot training program – no questions, no appeal.  Skills have value.  Different skills have different values.

            Re: childhood environment.  Again, you are spot on!  We have discussed aspects of this reality many times, and we cannot discuss it enough . . . far too important, foundational, and formative.  Yet, even the deficiencies of our childhood environment can be overcome.  Where there is a will, there is a way.  As you say, changing that childhood teaching is not easy . . . but it is possible.

            Re: addiction.  Good points.  I am not convinced of the no-choice aspect.  Yet, you are correct, once in the grip, there are only two choices left: 1.) accept the grip, and 2.) change once you have had enough.  Addicts have, can and will overcome the grip, once they decide they must change.  Nothing else can help them; only they can decide.

            Re: American assumption.  A bit cynical for my liking . . . but there is truth in your opinion.  Luck, happenstance and a helping hand do add to the outcome.

Another contribution:

“Just came out in the Post a few minutes ago….bad news.”

“Navy probing alleged cheating on nuke reactor work”

The article cited:

“Navy investigates 30 suspected of sharing answers on exams”

by Craig Whitlock

Washington Post

Published: February 4 [2014]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/navy-probing-alleged-cheating-on-nuke-reactor-work/2014/02/04/90433eda-8dcd-11e3-99e7-de22c4311986_story.html?hpid=z3

My reply:

            Always sad to see cases like these.  Perhaps we’ve been too complacent in recent years . . . distracted by other more threatening endeavors.

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

Cheers,

Cap                        :-)