26 May 2014

Update no.649

Update from the Heartland
No.649
19.5.14 – 25.5.14
To all,

The follow-up news items:
-- In our continuing discussion regarding the relationship between church and state, this time blooming from the Supremes’ recent ruling in Town of Greece v. Galloway [570 U.S. ___ (2014); No. 12-696] {review not complete} [647], a friend and long-time contributor to this humble forum sent along the link to this article:
“Virginia county board says no followers of ‘pre-Christian deities’ allowed to deliver prayers”
by Travis Gettys
The Raw Story
Published: Friday, May 23, 2014; 12:13 EDT
The Chesterfield County (Virginia) Board of Supervisors selected and invited clergy from their “approved” list to render the invocation for Board meetings.  Virtually all of the clergy on the approved list were Christian denomination ministers.  The Board specifically rejected those religions that do not fall within the “Judeo-Christian tradition and ‘invoke polytheistic, pre-Christian deities,’” or non-theistic faiths outside the accepted Christian faith of the majority in Chesterfield County, Virginia.  The American Civil Liberties Union challenged the Board’s action.  The case is working its way through the judicial system.
            As much as I have attempted to rationalize and defend prayer in the public and governance domains, cases like this in Chesterfield suggest I am naĂ¯ve, simplistic and otherwise not connected with reality.  If we cannot tolerate other religions in delivering non-denominational prayer, then I am afraid there must be none.  The founding principles of this Grand Republic are inclusive, NOT exclusive, of all, not just the chosen some or even many.  If we cannot embrace those principles, then we must eliminate the implied favoritism from the public domain.  This Grand Republic is NOT a Christian nation; it is a country of all religions and no state religion – one Nation under God (not the Christian faith).  I expect the courts will affirm those founding principles.
            More opinions and perspectives on this topic are offered in the Comment Section below.

The New York City Twin Towers 9/11 Memorial and Museum opened for dedication and preview by survivors, families, first-responders and anointed VIPs.  The memorial will open to the public next month.  Most reviews are quite good, especially regarding the solemnity, breadth, and quality of the complex.  Yet, no matter how long and hard the developers tried, nothing could be perfect.  The big controversy came in the form of a gift shop associated with the Memorial/Museum – a gift shop!  The facility is NOT just for those directly touched by our Second Day of Infamy.  It is a public facility.  Like it or not, some folks want to walk away from their experience with a souvenir or memento of the visit.  I surely hope and expect the managers of the facility stand up for the public as a whole rather than a small minority who were probably looking for at least one reason to object.  This whole gift shop kerfuffle is another example of political correctness gone insane.  The facility must support itself.  Further, some Muslims objected to a short video clip used in the display that refers to the attackers as “fundamentalist Muslims” and “violent jihadists.”  If I was a believer in the Islamic faith, I can understand why I might be a bit sensitive to being lumped in with those (and other) attackers.  Americans of Japanese heritage had to endure the abuse produced by the same kind of generalization at the beginning of World War II.  Yet, at the end of the day, the 9/11 attackers were indeed as they were labeled, just as the 1941 attackers were Japanese – nothing else.

Credit Suisse pleaded guilty in U.S. federal court to aiding tax evasion and agreed to pay US$2.6B to settle the case.  The culmination of the case was decades in the making.  Congratulations to the legal, banking and diplomatic team that brought the case to a close.  As understand the public information, the potential for individual prosecutions remains open.  A friend and long-time contributor to this humble forum sent along the following article:
Is Credit Suisse Really in Jail?
By James Kwak
“Is Credit Suisse Really in Jail?”
by James Kwak
The Baseline Scenario
Posted on May 20, 2014
 . . . to which I replied:
Calvin,
            Prima facie, yes, I would agree.  However, this particular banking conduct issue has a history spanning generations, especially the Swiss banking secrecy feature.  For generations, a mark of wealth was a “Swiss bank account” to hide cash and other assets from the taxman.  U.S. and British banks were moving Nazi funds until nearly the end of the war.  Banks have historically taken a neutral, it’s-just-about-the-money attitude toward their operations.  It was not until the so-called war on drugs that legislatures and countries began to tighten laws to deal with massive money laundering activities.  As national laws and international agreements progressively focused on the policies that enabled hiding money from tax collectors or other public interests, the noose tightened.  I see this settlement deal seems to signal the perseverance of governments to bring the wealthy under the law.  Time shall tell whether this judgment is the watershed moment we expect with respect to tax evasion prosecution.
            From a collateral perspective, Credit Suisse is one of the LIBOR big 16 international banks.  So far, they have only faced sanctions from Singapore.  I certainly expect the LIBOR investigation to yield more prosecutions and monetary fines. 
            Let us not forget that a goodly portion of culpability rests with legislatures who made laws with loopholes for their wealthy buddies and contributors.  Those gaps have begun to close for a variety of reasons, but they still exist. 

The House of Representatives passed H.R. 3361, provisionally titled the USA FREEDOM Act, “To reform the authorities of the Federal Government to require the       production of certain business records, conduct electronic surveillance, use pen registers and trap and trace devices, and use other forms of information gathering for foreign intelligence, counterterrorism, and criminal purposes, and for other purposes.”  The vote was truly bipartisan [303-121-0-7(4)].  The bill goes to the Senate and probably a conference committee to reconcile any differences between the House and Senate versions, before it goes to the President.
            The language of the House bill makes another attempt at further reform of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA) [PL 95-511; 92 Stat. 1783; 25.10.1978] {and its subsequent amendments}, and moves the domestic intelligence collection apparatus closer to criminal justice procedures.  The text of the H.R. 3361 bill focuses on the FBI and the authority of the FISA Court, but does not even mention the NSA or other intelligence agencies.  The bill also tightens the definitions of key terms like “tangible things,” which has been prone to expansive interpretation in past operations.  Significantly, the bill amends the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act [PL 109-177; 120 Stat. 192, 194; 9.3.2006] and requires the Justice Department Inspector General to audit FISA authorizations of “tangible things” between 2012 and 2014.  The bill also extends the operative law to 31.December.2017. My opinion and advocacy remain concentrated on every citizen’s Fundamental Right to Privacy and Fourth Amendment protections, as we continue to enable the available tools for the Intelligence Community, while separating, filtering and enforcing the barrier between the IC, and Law Enforcement and political operatives. H.R. 3361 appears to be reasonable and appropriate, but does not go as far as it should – a half-step forward, so to speak – better than nothing, but not good enough.

Comments and contributions from Update no.648:
“I really have a seemingly different opinion than most of your bloggers and you on the issue of prayer in government and our lives.  I agree religion and faith is personal between you and your God period.  If you don't believe in God, I will defend your right to have that belief and have done so in the past.  However our society is so divided because we try to boil things down to their LEAST COMMON DENOMINATOR which would be no God in this situation. That line of thought effectively eliminates what this country should value the most - our diversity and common acceptance of the differences, yet a nation founded under God. 
“I think that instead of stopping all prayer to God in public or multicultural events, we should encourage prayer but with opportunity for any to offer their prayers in their normal form for the common good of the event, guidance, and for each other.  Lest we forget - we were a nation founded under GOD, but not under any particular religious order or definition.  
“We are a nation based on democratic principles as well, and that means the majority rules in the interest of the majority of its citizens for the common good, such as mutual defense or commerce across boundaries.  
“Since the majority of the US citizens say they believe in God, we should include God and prayer in our public schools and government where the majority (not the minority) serve as leaders, teachers, and participants.  If a minority wants to have their own religious or non religious based school or gathering and follow other religious or non religious order, they should also be able to do that, but not as a minority stop the majority from following the principles that our great nation was founded upon.
“As a Christian I have never been offended by sincerely offered prayers to other deities and I have been a part of events and ceremonies with both Abrahamic and non-Abrahamic based religions.  Extremes within the various religions have resorted to killing each other over the centuries for lack of a common respect for the views of other God fearing people of their own "religion".  Various religions and sects have killed each other for centuries over differences.  Our nation has been unique in its history of not having religious wars because we were founded as a nation under God and by persons who were a melting pot of the various ideas.  We need to preserve that common belief and not fall victim to our least common denominator which is no belief at all.”
My reply:
            I’m not quite sure why you think we disagree regarding public prayer?  I agree absolutely that the “lowest common denominator,” i.e., no God, does not reflect our history, our heritage or the principles of this Grand Republic.  There are a broad myriad of examples to support that assessment.  Jefferson’s “wall of separation between church and state” was not separation between God and the People, or even God and the state.  This is precisely why my opinion remains that non-denominational prayer is appropriate, and sectarian prayer is not.
            To put a sharp point on this topic, I see clerics as flawed men, who are driven by the same detractor emotions as all the rest of us.  I could also argue clerics are more driven, not particularly different from those who seek power over groups of human beings, e.g., political, military, and corporate leaders.  There are simply too many examples in history, across all religions; and unfortunately, in my life, I have too many first-hand examples.  Clerics are a human manifestation and advocates/representatives for the idiosyncrasies of their particular religious sect, which in turn has been the primary reason for far too many wars and death in human history.  This is the core of my argument that public prayer must be devoid of religious affiliation.  I may not reflect the majority or any group of citizens beyond myself; yet, as I stated previously, God is as we hold Him (the generic pronoun, rather than the gender specific version) in our hearts, consciousness and souls.  Religion certainly helps us form that image and belief in each of us.  I will also content that atheists believe in a higher authority . . . even if it is only the law that stops them from resorting to Darwinian conduct.
            Re: “the majority rules in the interest of the majority of its citizens.”  This is where I will disagree to a minor extent.  In our form of governance, as I understand it, the majority can only impose its will upon a minority after clearly demonstrating a compelling public interest and through due process of the law.  For the majority to impose Christianity on non-believer minorities, they fail at the first gate, and should never reach the second gate.  The Supreme Court has repeatedly sustained that precept.  Further, I would be opposed to any effort to do so.  Yes, this Grand Republic is indeed one nation under God . . . as all nations are whether they recognize or accept that reality or not.  Lastly, I would see any effort to impose Christianity on the minorities of this Grand Republic as being NO DIFFERENT from what has happened in the Islamic Republic of Iran – a theocracy with all of its destructive potential.  We are an inclusive nation for all those who wish to live in peace and freedom; all religious affiliations are welcome, as long as they abide the rules.
            Let us not forget that our history has not been particularly pure in this regard, either.  Flawed men sought their own egocentric or megalomaniacal purposes for their discrimination and exclusion.  We, the People, have ultimately stood against such men and prevailed.  And so it goes.

Comment to the Blog:
“I imagine most of us agree that General Motors' (GM) $35 million fine was not enough, given GM's size and the gravity of the offense. A report on CBS Morning News stated that the fine amounts to one day's income for GM. That amount is the maximum allowed by law. Perhaps when that law is revised, the fine should be set as the company's income for a stated period. For example, a relatively minor infraction might cost them a day's income, a more serious offense two weeks or a month, and a harmful and deliberate violation such as this one several months' income. We should use income rather than profit because corporations routinely shelter or hide profits for tax reasons and because money-losing companies cannot be exempt.
“Perhaps seeing the EU struggle despite their own momentary prosperity will help Germany realize that their economy is tied to the rest of the world's prosperity or poverty. The nationalistic approach to economics that is still seen worldwide has become outdated. I remain uncertain what will or should replace it.
“Perhaps something like a statement of purpose and unity would serve government units better than a prayer. First I reiterate the difficulty of finding anything not objectionable to someone. Also, not everyone agrees with religion as a concept or with making it public. My religion matters to me; I am clergy. All the same, religion is to me a private matter. While I am not a Christian, I agree with the Biblical injunction (Matthew Chapter 5) not to pray in public ‘as the hypocrites do.’”
My response to the Blog:
            Re: corporate penalties.  I like your suggestion.  Even better, I would like to see those executives who made, approved, or sanctioned the decisions that are injurious to public safety or health, or broader public interests, prosecuted and punished, i.e., prison time.
            Re: international economics model.  I understand the reasoning for a more global approach to economic decisions and actions.  However, as with law enforcement or peace-keeping, or any other sovereign action, who is going to make those decisions and enforce the process?
            Re: public prayer.  I am seeking compromise.  To me, the issue is not prayer but rather religion in the hands of flawed men.  We do agree, religion is a private matter.
 . . . follow-up comment:
“You added an important point to the corporate crime issue. Corporations are not people, and people must be held accountable for crimes. Penalties directed at the corporation have a poor history and need much development before they have any real use to society. Penalties directed at people, on the other hand, could be raised to appropriate levels for these white-collar crimes with relative ease.
“I do not know either how the world's nations need to adapt to the advances in transportation and communication that have led to their interdependency. However, this issue needs attention so that nations, companies, and people adapt voluntarily rather than being forced into last-second jury-rigging.
“I believe all humans are imperfect. Adding religion to politics just broadens the field of flaws that can come into play. The more I think about it, the more I think a statement of purpose for the particular government unit sponsoring the meeting or event and a commitment to
"the greatest good for the greatest number" (or something similar) by the key participants would better serve society's interests than any prayer.”
 . . . my follow-up response:
            Re: corporate misdeeds.  We are agreed.  Trying to punish corporations is almost a wasted effort.  Yet, I suspect the government favors negotiated settlements because it is the path of least resistance to a public token of “punishment.”  Trying to take individuals to court for a trial before a jury of citizens is rarely a sure thing . . . so, apparently, they think something is better than nothing.  Yes, at least, we are seeing some individuals tried, convicted and punished; simply, we have no where near enough decision-makers punished, given the Great Recession, LIBOR, the GM notification/recall failure, et al.  Being an eternal optimist, I hope someday Congress will grow the balls necessary to do what must be done.
            Re: world economics.  Good point.  I do not know how it should be done either.  The LIBOR investigation and very limited prosecutions so far is a prime example of why the current international process is barely functional.
            Re: prayer.  I think non-denominational prayer, if done properly and well, does just that . . . expresses a statement of purpose.  The “wall of separation” exists and must exist between religion and governance.  Yet, an inspirational, non-denominational prayer serves many purposes to reach individuals, some will ignore it, and others will take the message to heart.  Those who do not find any value in such inspirational statements can and will ignore it.  It will only mean what each individual chooses to take from the words.
   Take care and enjoy.
Cheers,
Cap


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

19 May 2014

Update no.648

Update from the Heartland
No.648
12.5.14 – 18.5.14
To all,

The follow-up news items:
-- The USG did not waste time slapping a US$35M fine on General Motors for their failure to promptly report an ignition switch problem [642].  The company also agreed to a wide range of unspecified procedural changes in how it investigates and manages safety complaints.  While the fine is the largest allowed by law, it is only a spit in the bucket for a large corporation like General Motors.  Yet, something is better than nothing.

The President of the United States awarded the Medal of Honor to former Army Sergeant Kyle J. White for his extraordinary performance above and beyond the call of duty during combat operations in Aranas, Afghanistan, on Friday, 9.November.2007.  White served as a radioman in C Company, 2nd Battalion (Airborne), 503rd Infantry Regiment, 173rd Airborne Brigade, as part of a combined U.S./Afghan unit, when the team was ambushed by a much larger and more heavily armed Taliban force after a meeting with Afghan villagers.  He repeatedly defied withering enemy fire, running into the open ground, to help wounded comrades.  Twice knocked unconscious by proximate explosions, White called in mortar, artillery and air support, as well as medievac coverage for the wounded.  Thank you Sergeant White for your service to this Grand Republic.

News from the economic front:
-- The European Union’s statistics agency Eurostat reported the region’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) grew 0.2% in 1Q2014, short of expectations, despite strong performance by Germany. Last quarter’s rise translates into 0.8% growth in annualized terms.

Continuation from Update no.646:
 . . . round three comment:
“I doubt the sinkholes are directly related to climate change unless they can be connected to depleted aquifers. More likely, developers have caused them, by draining land for development. Also, some sinkholes result from sewer or water lines either collapsing or leaking due to aging and dilapidated systems. That's one more argument for bringing part of the military budget home.
“A small addition to the Koch Brothers saga. In Columbus, Ohio, a recent levy vote for the local zoo failed apparently due to opposition financed in very large amounts by the Koch Brothers. A local interviewer (WBNS-10 TV, the CBS affiliate) asked their representative,
"So you laid down the law?" The rep answered, "Yes." Obviously I take issue with the idea that wealthy individuals can "lay down the law" without any legal process at all.
“Small businesses do indeed account for much economic activity. However, they do little to influence the course of the larger economy. Their activities are scattered, they are subject to Adam Smith's ideas playing out, and they are not a coherent bloc. For one example among many, fast-food franchisees, while they participate in a very large industry, cannot individually contribute millions to a party or SuperPAC and they do not act collectively. Often, small businesses suffer from larger players' manipulations.”
 . . . my response to round three:
            Re: sinkholes.  Agreed . . . well, except for the military budget part.
            Re: Koch brothers.  The notion that with wealth comes the right to lay down the law is precisely my point of objection.  That notion is not materially different from the divine right of kings.  “Royalty” and “wealthy” are just flawed human beings like all the rest of us – no better, no worse.  This principle is a portion of why I think non-denominational prayer to open a legislative session is important . . . legislative action and the law must be bigger than any particular faction whether royalty or commoner.
            Re: small business.  Clearly, any particular small business does not affect the national economy a smidge.  However, small business collectively, quite like the citizenry – none of us affects governance, but collectively we do.  It seems we are both reflecting the same observations of reality.

Comments and contributions from Update no.647:
Comment to the Blog:
“I agree with the Washington Post that prayer has no place in government functions, for exactly the reasons they give. As a member of a non-Abrahamic religion I assume I have a different view from mainstream people on this issue. Christian prayers leave me cold at best and typically feel hostile to me. However well intended, they use Christian values and concepts with which I have conflicts. There are other issues as well. By way of illustration, I have already seen a story floating around Facebook that a Satanist has sought to open a town council meeting somewhere in Florida. I wish him well, and I hope Hindus, Buddhists, Rastafarians, and Wiccans, among others, follow his example. That still leaves one problem, though. What about those who sincerely believe that no deity exists or that prayer in public is inappropriate (for example, followers of Matthew 5:5-6)? Any prayer or religious function at all will leave them isolated. If, as stated in the article, the people making rule decisions for these meetings seriously seek a sense of unity in their proceedings, they need to find a more unifying way to do that.
“I have heard Donald Sterling's famous remark too many times on TV. I remain uncertain as to what exactly he meant, but let us assume it is racist. The woman to whom he addressed that remark has a history of issues around her own race as well as a personal history that makes her integrity doubtful. There is a reasonable possibility that he was advising her on dealing with her personal issues. In any case, she has asserted that she has a large volume of other recorded conversation. Even though Mr. Sterling is a public figure, I believe he is entitled to some level of privacy. ‘V. Stiviano,’ who has used several other names, has abused his trust and most likely should be sued for her actions. Given that I have quit listening to this particular story, I do not know if a criminal charge of extortion is in order. Okay, that's plenty for that distraction.”
My response to the Blog:
            Re: town council prayer.  I do not support opening with Christian prayer, even though only Christian churches are available in Greece, New York.  I do support non-denominational prayer.  I will try to get the Greece ruling read ASAP.  Non-denominational prayer does not impose any religion on anyone.  God is as each of us holds Him in our heart and soul; God is not as others may try to define for us.  To me, prayer is not a religious function.  Rather, it is a reminder of the morality legislators must bring to their deliberations, e.g., God give us strength to do what is right.
            Re: Sterling.  Yes, we are all entitled to privacy, including Donald Sterling.  Yet, he chose to allow that woman into his private domain.  He chose to say what he said, regardless of stimulation or catalyst.  I hold that woman in even less regard than Sterling.  She exudes all the characteristics of the worst kind of gold-digger – willing to betray anyone and everyone to get what she wants, and vindictive when she doesn’t.  It’s all about the money for them.
 . . . follow-up comment:
“Cap, true ‘non-denominational’ prayer going beyond Judeo-Christian-Muslim viewpoints is not that easy. For example, Hindus and others work with multiple deities, and some of us find masculine pronouns inappropriate. Meanwhile, the Buddhists do not necessarily use any deity at all, yet they are a major religion.  In addition, some of us take issue with the concepts, not just the words, of Judeo-Christian-Muslim beliefs. Check with someone whose background is comparative religion; true non-denominational prayer is hard to write.
“Donald Sterling has shown his true colors with his attempt to apologize, which turned into an ill-timed and dramatically inappropriate rant against Magic Johnson. While this does nothing to improve the image we share of his ex-girlfriend, he has made it appear that he got what he deserved.”
 . . . my follow-up response:
            Re: non-denominational prayer.  I’m sure it is hard to write.  However, in the public domain, that should be the standard and requirement.  My point is, secular governance and the public domain must be devoid of the trappings any particular religion, explicit or implied.  
            Re: Sterling.  Yeah.  He sealed his fate with that Anderson Cooper interview.  The NBA has no choice left to protect its brand.  Again, if he was just a citizen speaking his mind, he can say whatever he wants; however, he is speaking as an NBA team owner, and in that, he relinquishes his unqualified right to free speech.  While he has committed no crime, to my knowledge, he has tarnished the NBA brand.  I sure hope the NBA makes the coup de grĂ¢ce as quick as possible.  We need to be done with this crap.

Another contribution:
Responding to your ‘calling a spade a spade’ could be considered by some to be racist based on how it is taken.  Today we hear everything such that it offends us. What is troubling to me is that our Supreme court has gotten as divided as our political process and society in general.  We can predict with fair accuracy how a case is going to come down.  Not necessarily based on the Constitution.”
My reply:
Frank,
            Re: “call a spade a spade.”  My apologies, I was not aware that it was a racist phrase.  I always understood it was a card game challenge, i.e., call as you see it.
            Re: Supreme Court.  Yes, I agree.  It does appear the Supremes have become more calcified in their polarity, and ideological in their rationale.  I need to get my reading done on this latest ruling . . . it seems to have touched a nerve.

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

Cap                        :-)

12 May 2014

Update no.647

Update from the Heartland
No.647
5.5.14 – 11.5.14
To all,

As is so often the case these days, the Supremes sparked yet another public debate.  On Monday, the vaunted panel of high court justices rendered their thin 5-4 decision in the case of Town of Greece v. Galloway [570 U.S. ___ (2014); No. 12-696] – allowing an opening prayer for the monthly town council meeting in Greece, New York.  I have not read the ruling, as yet, so I shall reserve my opinion until after the read-through.  However, the editorial opinion published by the Washington Post poked me to tinkle the keys before me, perhaps prematurely but now nonetheless.
“Sanctioned prayer has no place at legislative meetings”
by Editorial Board
Washington Post
Published: May 10 [2014]
Various, 17th and 18th century, political philosophers articulated the need for secular government, separate from the monarchy or theocratic authority.  Thomas Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists (1802) stated the principle most succinctly.  The separation of church and state did not and does not mean expunging religion from public life.  The wall was never intended to exclude religion from the public domain and debate.  The key and only issue is balance.  The Founders had first hand, direct experience with theocratic rule, and they also understood the importance of religion in their lives and in a free society. We have negative examples even today.  The Founders understood the need for balance.  I suspect the Supremes are seeking that balance point to ensure inclusivity as well as some distance between theocratic domination and public policy.

A thread from another arena is transplanted to this humble forum may be useful in this forum.  I recognize and acknowledge the whole nasty business with Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling does not make fruitful public debate; however, there are elements that may prove useful.  The opening argument comes from a friend and contributor to this humble forum.
“Funny how hypocritical our president and all the alphabet news agencies really are. When Clippers owner Donald Sterling made the alleged ‘racist’ comments (though I still am not so sure they were racist), why THE HELL is our loser president and all the loser Al Sharptons and other coke head corrupt minions, not at all saying WHAT DONALD STERLING said in private, should have been kept private. Since when in our country do we leak audio recordings of private conversations, then use it ON-AIR to conduct the lynch mob witch hunt of trying him, and finding a verdict, and sentencing him--in the court of public opinion, when he was never given any due process (nor did he commit any crimes).
“This is all a good example of how sick our country really is.”
> 
> Darren
My response"
“Wait just a doggone minute here!  Sterling has a history with this crap and not a short history either.  I believe the mistress was pissed off, acted out of spite, and simply queued him up. He did not disappoint those who wanted his head on a pike.  This was not some drunken blathering.  He stepped in it full on.  The President, Sharpton or the alphabet news agencies simply called a spade a spade.  Has anyone asked where or when it was recorded, or how the recording got released to the public?”
“That's just my opinion, but I could be wrong.”
. . . round two:
“This is what I blogged in a news media site:
“My opinion on Don Sterling/Clippers/NBA:  Even if he is racist, why does our alphabet news agencies over-cover what was a conversation in private, exposed to world (legally?). Then our so called POTUS has to weigh in on it from Asia even though the world has so much stress? Race baiting? Divide the people?  And now Oprah weighs in saying Sterling demonstrates the "plantation mentality" and now a "Sterling anti-racism rally" planned which LAPD must plan for. Thanks news media: you fuel the race problems!”
“Cap, most of us can be hypnotized by the news media reporting, style, format and focus.  I am not immune to it what so ever, if anything, I might be more captivated by the wrong events, for the wrong reasons.   The point I want to make is WHAT IF much of what they report on the network/cable news outlets, is not as much for the actual ‘NEWS’ value but an objective of the reaction it causes in the public?
“All because Don Sterling's private conversation was recorded then outed, now LAPD must plan on a possible tactical alert, increased staffing, embeddings C.I.'s and U.C.'s into the groups, and likely alert if not deploy their Mobile Field Force, all because of some drunk man's sloppy and racist speech to someone he thought was his girlfriend. 
“Here's a question, has anyone been probing the legality of whether that conversation was illegally obtained?  No, the news media and our president (if one can call him that), and Oprah, and Al Sharpton, and all the race baiters that keep popping their heads out on cue, are working as the clowns they are at our CNN circus, to divide and distract the people.
“I've always said I don't think deep down to our core, most of us are racist, it seems very silly that we would judge one another based on skin pigmentation, when all of us were created by God. 
“Stereotyping does causes judgment, and it is of course easy to stereotype others, but much of this has been created by how news media reports events.
“Are people tribal?  I tend to believe they are.  We have a natural tendency to feel comfortable around people who we MIGHT BELIEVE are similar to ourselves in values/behavior/etc.   Many tend to want association with those in their social-economic sphere.  Do you think my high-net-worth clients want to hang out in their free time with their chauffeur?  Hell no!  Some have already asked me before why if I had my own business before, or was director of marketing for 2 companies, why I would be a ‘driver?’  They judged me per my occupation.  I don't take it personally.  Would I want to hang out with some of my client/passengers off-duty?  Hell no!  I don't relate or value what they do.   But even on an occupational level, everyone judges others.  I'm not in their economic class, likely won't ever be, so I am not as good (in their eyes).  Would I feel comfortable hanging with Don Sterling in a quaint steakhouse in Brentwood or Toluca Lake?  Likely not, though if I was just as drunk as Sterling, it might be entertainment.   
“Here is the central point of my originating message: Would you or I like our conversations that were held in PRIVATE, made public?  Would we want some of our behavior in PRIVATE exposed to TMZ, then the president can weigh in on it?  I doubt it.  Would we want video of something we did aired for the world?  I doubt it.  All of us have probably said things that could get us fried in the court of public opinion, if the news media's crafting of the story was to fry us. 
“So if some rioting starts up soon over this, hopefully not, let's not blame Don Sterling, but blame the entities/agents that recorded the conversations and then systematically exposed it with the agenda to divide the people on RACE.
“What's another scary takeaway from this (besides private recordings released) is NPR saying this morning that the only way we could accept Sterling back into his position as a sports teams owner, is if we can prove he is not only apologizing on the surface, but his values and opinions have been changed down to the root.  I find this Orwellian that NPR is now going to dictate our collective values to us in the global village.   With the extensive data-collection (vacuuming); data-warehousing; and data-mining that NSA has been and is doing, why any of us could be the target of a private conversation being outed, then used against us in some fashion.
“BTW, I pretty much had this same opinion when Mel Gibson's recordings were released of conversations he had in private, while drunk, and being really stupid.”
 . . . my response to round two:
Darren,
            My apologies for this late response.  Perhaps, just an interesting FYI: I am working the final edit of the manuscript for me next book – The Clarity of Hindsight.  The focus has absorbed virtually all of my new capacity in retirement.  I need to get this sucker finished, so I can move on to Book III of the To So Few series novels.  That said, on to the topic at hand.
            I absolutely agree with your privacy premise.  None of us wants our private affairs broadcast across all media worldwide.  Likewise, I immediately asked the same questions.  Who recorded that conversation?  And, who leaked it to the Press?  My opinion of the two women involved is not particularly good.  “Vengeance is mine, sayeth the Lord.”  The mistress (assistant?) has not been serving her reputation well with her antics and interviews . . . all of which, IMHO, confirm her purpose in all those.
            I surely hope the IRS has opened an investigation into whether Ms. Stiviano has paid her proper taxes on all those “gifts” and “benefits” given to her by Sterling.  Gold-diggers must pay taxes too.
            I shall offer a few opinionated observations for public debate in this (or any other) humble forum.  The aspect of this sordid affair I find most intellectually stimulating is the human dimensions of the illuminated dynamics. 
First, her questioning of him has flashing lights and red flags of a purposeful, intentional set-up; she knew how he would react, and she queued him up quite well. 
Second, we tend to forget that the mantle we embrace curtails our freedoms including speech.  When I wear a uniform or display an employee badge, I am no longer John Q. Citizen; I am a representative of whatever that affiliation may be.  Despite his wealth and influence, Sterling forgot, or perhaps never learned, that he was an owner of just one franchise in a much larger organization, and his words, actions and conduct in public or private will be judged by the keepers of the brand he represents. 
Third, there is a lesson for all of us in this.  When our private and public words, actions and/or conduct differ, we immediately establish a dichotomy that can be, and often well be, interpreted as hypocrisy or contempt for society’s sense of “normal.” 
Fourth, this is yet another demonstration of the awesome power of The Box (= society’s definition of normal).  He chose to live his life in a manner well outside The Box.  Society does not take kindly to crabs trying to escape the heat of the boiling pot. 
Lastly, his money obviously bought a lot of power, influence and things, but at the end of the day, he is just another citizen and a flawed human being.  Humility might have served him well.

Comments and contributions from Update no.646:
Comment to the Blog:
“Let's see, how can I stir something up? I wonder what's behind the landslides and sinkholes lately. Could that be a more-or-less direct result of changing rainfall patterns as the climate changes? Is Latvia the next target for the Russians? Have you noticed people talking more often and less kindly about the Koch brothers? I have seen TV reports of various views on domestic commercial drones. What do you think?
“Have you heard the prediction that China's economy will grow to be larger than ours this year? In the long term that may be more important than those other items above. Also in reference to China, do you think they will do something to keep the peace in their region while their economy flourishes? Both Russia and North Korea are among China's neighbors.
“The Fed has decided to cut back on bond buying despite the continuing confusion among economic indicators. At this point, I guess one move has as much chance as another. Until someone important either comes to understand whatever is going on or decides to impart such knowledge to the rest of us, action is pointless. For my own viewpoint, the thirty years since Reagan began to get his owners' ideas implemented have convinced me that John Maynard Keynes came far closer to sound ideas than the distorted version of Adam Smith's notions that currently passes for economics. Are you (or is any non-economist?) aware that Adam Smith completely opposed the idea of limited liability? Limited liability is the foundational concept underlying corporations.”
My response to the Blog:
            I always appreciate a good stir.  Thank you for that.
            Landslides and sinkholes have been happening since forever.  They are microscopic events in the macroclimate dynamic, i.e., spot extremes, hazards, or other calamities will always occur regardless of the climate; thus, I do not think the recent catastrophes are due to climate change.
            Re: Latvia.  The Baltic States would be easy pickings compared to the Ukraine, except for one small detail – the European Union, and consequently NATO of which the United States is a part.  Latvia is farther along in the EU membership process than the Ukraine.  That said, Latvia and the Baltics are highly unlikely targets short of general warfare.
            Re: Koch Brothers.  Nope, not seen that as yet . . . still very much the villainous portrayal, it seems to me.
            Re: domestic drones.  The use of domestic drone aircraft of various sizes is inevitable, in my humble opinion – endurance, size, repetition, risk, cost, among other reasons.  The potential for chaos is real.  It does not take much imagination to see that potential without regulation, control and structure.  The FAA has several initiatives in play to get a handle on safe use of unmanned aircraft in U.S. airspace.
            Re: PRC.  Yes; in fact, by the latest estimates, the PRC economy may overtake the U.S. economy as the world’s largest earlier than expected, prior to 2020 by one estimate.  The consequences to the world economy are certainly less clear.
            Re: PRC regional aggression.  This is a tough one in my mind.  I do not know why the PRC is taking progressively more aggressive action against its territorial neighbors . . . could be a sense of remedy to enduring grievances, or simply the schoolyard bully syndrome.
            Re: Fed action.  That was precisely my point.  The economic signs are not all positive or consistent, which suggests to me that the nation’s recovery from the Great Recession is more mushy and unsteady.
            Re: limited liability.  Yes, I think most folks can see the consequences of limited liability for corporations.  Perhaps less can see the benefit.  As with most things, the key is balance.  Given the uncharted ramifications of Citizens United, the pendulum appears to have swung too far toward the benefit of corporations.  Adam Smith’s premise was cause and effect, i.e., consequences for decisions taken.  The market cannot be a reliable broker in the arbitration of wrongdoing or the public good in contemporary society, as modern technology enables dramatic market manipulation by forces with the means to do so, i.e., the wealthy bending the market to their will . . . kinda like royalty of a bygone era.
 . . . follow-up comments:
“Landslides and sinkholes are indeed old phenomena, but I suspect they are becoming more common. If that is so, the landslides might be due to saturated or at least moistened soils becoming more susceptible to gravity. The sinkholes are more likely to be the result of depleted aquifers caused by unsustainable population growth and thirsty agriculture and by reckless development of wetlands.
“I have been aware of the Koch Brothers for several years, but only recently I have seen mentions of them on TV news and by President Obama that led me to think they are becoming more known to the public. As a progressive and a defender of the American concept of equality, I do not favor a situation where people who make a great deal of money in the petroleum industry can dominate our political discourse by the use of their wealth. These guys finance the Tea Party. The Tea Party may be irrational but it has succeeded so far.
“I share your prediction of domestic drones. I sincerely hope the FAA will implement and enforce controls to prevent the chaos we both envision and to protect domestic privacy.
“The People's Republic of China continues to baffle all outside observers as it has always done. I can only hope they figure prominently in the planning functions of the developed world's other governments.
“The importance of limited liability in our economics context is that it invalidates much of Adam Smith's economics. Smith made no attempt to deal with large-scale operations such as the Hudson Bay Company or the Dutch East India Company. Wealth of Nations, his best-known work, discusses local shopkeepers and small-scale manufacturers specifically because they were operated by sole proprietors or partnerships that were and are held fully accountable for any damage they caused. Today's economy does not turn on those small businesses, but on multi-national corporations and "too big to fail" banks. People who use Smith's ideas in relation to the enormous entities of the 21st Century are essentially trying to manipulate the rest of us. Unfortunately, they are largely succeeding. That is why so many people vote against themselves. The arbitration of wrongdoing and especially the public good are generally presented as among the objectives of economic systems in general; wealth in and of itself is a tool used for those ends. The differences arise in how each system tries to accomplish its objectives.”
 . . . my follow-up response:
            Re: landslides & sinkholes.  Yes to both; those are generally the causes of both geologic phenomena.  However, what is not so clear is any generalized linkage to global climate change. 
            Re: political discourse.  Agreed.  Likewise, I do not want anyone dominating the political discourse by anything other than the power of their rhetoric and strength of the argument.  The Tea Party is an excuse for intransigence rather than compromise.
            Re: drones.  The FAA has a legal responsibility to implement controls on the operation of unmanned aircraft in U.S. airspace.  We shall see how they choose to accomplish that task.
            Re: PRC.  If the PRC continues to treat their neighbors in the manner they have been doing so, I cannot see them being a beneficial influence in the developing world.
            Re: small business.  Interesting perspective, it seems to me.  The “too-big-to-fail” banks and large multinational corporations do indeed have an inordinate influence.  Yet, I do believe small businesses still account for the majority of economic activity.  I do not have any idea whether or how a proper correction takes place; but, that correction is needed.

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

Cap                        :-)