27 July 2015

Update no.710

Update from the Heartland
No.710
20.7.15 – 26.7.15
To all,

            I finished my review of the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent Obergefell v. Hodges [576 U.S. ___ (2015); no. 14-556; 26.June.2015] decision – the so-called same-sex marriage case.  At its most rudimentary level, this was not a high point of judicial reasoning.  James Obergefell of Ohio brought the constitutional action based on his claim that he was denied equal protection under the law when he was rejected by the state as the survivor of his partner of more than two decades, John Arthur, who passed away after his losing struggle with Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS).  Other non-heterosexual couples in three other states (Kentucky, Michigan and Tennessee) made other similar claims.  The Court heard the oral arguments of the various appeals in April.
              Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the narrow 5-4 majority.  “From their beginning to their most recent page, the annals of human history reveal the transcendent importance of marriage.”  “Rising from the most basic human needs, marriage is essential to our most profound hopes and aspirations.”  He observed, “[M]arriage was once viewed as an arrangement by the couple’s parents based on political, religious, and financial concerns; but by the time of the Nation’s founding it was understood to be a voluntary contract between a man and a woman.”  Further, “The identification and protection of fundamental rights is an enduring part of the judicial duty to interpret the Constitution.”  In noting the progress with their legal status made by non-heterosexual citizens in recent years, Justice Kennedy said, “Outlaw to outcast may be a step forward, but it does not achieve the full promise of liberty.”  The majority concluded, “These considerations lead to the conclusion that the right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person” . . . “the Constitution contemplates that democracy is the appropriate process for change, so long as that process does not abridge fundamental rights” . . . “[non-heterosexual citizens] ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.”  Each of the dissenters wrote separate opinions to express their disapproval and in a couple of instances outrage.  Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the dissent (without Alito).  He said, “[T]his Court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us.”  Roberts went on to observe, “The purpose of insisting that implied fundamental rights have roots in the history and tradition of our people is to ensure that when unelected judges strike down democratically enacted laws, they do so based on something more than their own beliefs.”  Associate Justices Scalia and Thomas were not quite so gentle.  “Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court . . . the Court’s claimed power to create ‘liberties’ that the Constitution and its Amendments neglect to mention.  This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves.”  Scalia concluded, “With each decision of ours that takes from the People a question properly left to them—with each decision that is unabashedly based not on law, but on the ‘reasoned judgment’ of a bare majority of this Court—we move one step closer to being reminded of our impotence.”  Thomas stated, “[T]he Constitution contains no ‘dignity’ Clause, and even if it did, the government would be incapable of bestowing dignity.”  He noted, “State decisions interpreting these provisions between the founding [1787] and the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment [1868] almost uniformly construed the word ‘liberty’ to refer only to freedom from physical restraint.” (emphasis added)  Thomas concluded, “In its haste to reach a desired result, the majority misapplies a clause focused on ‘due process’ to afford substantive rights, disregards the most plausible understanding of the ‘liberty’ protected by that clause, and distorts the principles on which this Nation was founded.  Its decision will have inestimable consequences for our Constitution and our society.”
            By the Scalia / Thomas interpretation of the Constitution, the strict constructionists seek to preserve the status quo ante.  By implication, the Constitution is a very rigid, un-adaptive document.  Any social changes would require an amendment to the Constitution, which essentially meant no change, i.e., the Constitution was frozen in time by the assumed or implied meaning (as they interpret it) present at the time of the ratification, and not in the spirit of the broader language chosen by the Framers.  The dream and vision of the Founders and Framers was pure enough for their time.  Strict, literal translation to contemporary times does not look like what we expect today – times have changed.  Yet, their dream remains just as valid 239 years hence.
            The specific consequence of this ruling is quite apparent, but it is the nibblings at the boundaries that represent far more significance to the future of this Grand Republic and freedom itself.  The dissent offers us numerous glimpses of how thin and fragile our freedom truly is – questions that strike at the very core of our most basic freedoms.  What is ‘liberty’?  What are fundamental rights?  What are the limits of religious freedom?  Where and how is the demarcation between public and private defined, established and protected?
            As noted above, Thomas argued that liberty as referred to in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution was understood by the Framers to be only the freedom from physical restraint by the government.  As such, extension of the word beyond that assumed original meaning is inappropriate and wrong.  The word ‘liberty’ is only mentioned once in the Preamble – “Blessings of Liberty” – and twice in the amendments – “life, liberty, or property” – in the 5th and 14th Amendments.  On reading Thomas’s words, I am gobsmacked that ‘liberty’ could be interpreted in such narrow terms, like ‘citizen’ meant ONLY free, white, male, educated, property owners.  Really?  If that was the interpretation of the Founders / Framers intended, then why didn’t they just say it explicitly?  Using Thomas’s argument, we would still be living in the 18th Century and at least he would be happy.
            The fundamentalists and strict constructionists are absolutely correct – marriage is never mentioned or even implied or inferred in the Constitution.  What they conveniently ignore is the overriding issue of a citizen’s fundamental rights, or at least the basis or implications of those rights.  In essence, what are the boundaries of the State’s authority to impose upon an individual citizen’s fundamental rights (I will add parenthetically . . . that exist above the Constitution, i.e., beyond the reach of the State without a compelling public interest and due process of law).  If the Court had examined the compelling State interest for injecting itself into a predominately, if not solely, private contractual matter and imposing its will without the consequences of that imposition, we might have a proper debate regarding why the State must demand adherence to its definitions.  Such is not the case here.  The dissent’s arguments ring hollow – do as I say . . . just because . . . that is has it has always been . . . (stomp my foot) . . . because I said so.  I actually understand the Court’s reluctance to embrace the notion of a citizen’s fundamental rights or the reality of the 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution – they are ambiguous and unbounded by words of definition.  Judges / Justices interpreting laws seek and prefer precision in the words . . . thus, the insistent demands of the strict constructionists.  If it is not written, it does not exist.  Without clarity and definition to those fundamental rights endowed by the Creator, we will constantly endure the clash with those who seek to use the instruments of State to impose upon the fundamental rights of ALL citizens.
            Thomas used §IIIB of his dissenting opinion to articulate his perspective about potential offense to religious liberty, which is quite an interesting twist as he declared marriage is a religious entity rather than a secular, state, licensing process.  He is implying the Court’s ruling may directly result in infringement on religious liberty.  The argument represents just another facet of the conflict between competing rights – individual versus individual, State versus individual.  This issue is not a unilateral problem.  We must breakdown this urge to project our beliefs, our moral values, into the private lives of others, and again this admonition is valid both ways.
            I remain absolutely gobsmacked at the similarities between the freedom debates of the 1850’s and those of our contemporary times.  In essence, Scalia is saying the majority has the freedom and the right to deny liberties (I use the word in the broader sense, beyond Thomas’s highly restrictive interpretation) to a minority of our citizens simply because they disapprove of their choices and the reality of their individual “Life, Liberty and pursuit of Happiness.”  I suppose part of the issue here is where do we draw the line between public and private, between secular and religious?  There is valid argument in Scalia’s reasoning.  The 13th Amendment (1865) abolished slavery and essentially deleted Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3 of the original Constitution as ratified (1788).  The 14th Amendment (1868) guaranteed equal protection under the Constitution for all citizens . . . not just freed slaves.  In fact, the 14th Amendment mentions nothing about freed slaves in the former Confederate states.  Through a long series of decisions over the next 100+ years, the Court whittled away at state laws that de facto enforced segregation and the denial of those very same rights guaranteed to them by the Constitution and its amendments.  Is this the generational change process advocated by the strict constructionists?
            I see this ruling in far broader terms – the State versus the individual citizen.  I certainly agree with the strict constructionists – the Constitution was constructed in a caldron of separation, the abject failure of the Articles of Confederation, and the tumultuous public debate surrounding federalism.  The Framers achieved a compromise that established the Constitution as a definition of federal authority among the several states – the boundaries of that authority. What seems to be often passed by is, three and a half years after ratification of the Constitution (in force), the very same Framers decided they needed to add ten amendments to the Constitution that we call the Bill of Rights – protections of individual rights of each and every citizen.  The Constitution as ratified in 1788 was not perfect, e.g., Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3.  The noted flaw was rectified 77 years later [13 Stat. 774].  Non-heterosexual citizens are no longer willing to suffer discrimination and persecution in silence.  If Roberts has even passingly acknowledged the persecution and denigration non-heterosexual citizens throughout history and the unrealized Liberty promised to ALL citizens (independent of the social factors), his argument might have more force.  The audacity . . . justices are comfortable declaring inanimate corporations imbued with the rights and privileges of citizenship and at the same time arguing that the Court is over-reaching to recognize equal rights for living, breathing, human citizens.  If marriage was as Roberts articulates, the State sanction of sexual relations that leads to procreation, then why does not that logic extend to paternal polygamy, since a male an impregnate females at will, while the female gestation cycle is limited to nine months.  Why isn’t the Duggar’s 19-and-counting familial model the societal and legal ideal, i.e., the State encouraging, if not enforcing, procreation?  Or, the [Kody] Brown family of four wives and 23 children becoming the ideal of the State’s endorsement of procreation?  The State’s and the Obergefell dissenters’ rationale does not hold water.

            An interesting opinion and perspective given this week’s primary topic:
“How religious liberty laws threaten religion”
by Davis Merritt
Wichita Eagle
Published: JULY 20, 2015
Merritt’s concluding sentence: “[The evaluation of ‘sincerely held beliefs’] is no court’s proper province and is the ultimate church-and-state nightmare, hazardous for all sides of the dispute, our democracy and every religious person.  Merritt may well be correct.
            In researching this segment, I ran across another Merritt opinion of relevance today.
“Fundamental rights supersede majority rule”
by Davis Merritt
Wichita Eagle
Published: OCTOBER 13, 2014
It is encouraging to find at least one other opinion similar to mine.  Now, the Supremes must find the moment and the will to firmly and decisively define a citizen’s fundamental rights.  Until they do, we shall remain embroiled in a constant struggle between the State and the individual, and between individuals with different beliefs.  Resolution of this conflict is essential for the evolution of democracy and specifically this Grand Republic.

            Comments and contributions from Update no.709:
“Is no deal better than a bad deal that is a good question.”
[NOTE: The offered link to an advertisement produced by a new group called Citizens for a Nuclear Free Iran.]
My reply:
            Thank you for the link.  I’ve seen the advert’ on TV once so far, and I suspect we’ll see it more times before this is over.
            On one side of this issue, Neville Chamberlain believed and convinced many others that words were better than bloodshed.  In that instance, history does not reflect well upon his professed and demonstrated position.  Bad men are going to do bad things regardless of the words.
            In our contemporary instance, in contrast with the 1938 episode, we have the military capacity to affect the necessary change.   Case in point, the 7.June.1981, IDF pre-emptive air attack on an Iraqi nuclear reactor at Osirak, near Baghdad, eliminated most of the Iraqi nuclear program.  Such a pre-emptive strike on IRI nuclear facilities would be not quite as successful or efficient.  The IRI is not Iraq.
            Our choices are few.  The IRI is a sovereign nation with a significant size and defense capacity.  Sanctions have certainly punished the IRI, however, the sanctions have not stopped the IRI nuclear development program.  The remaining choices are: deal or war.  I would prefer all diplomatic efforts be exhausted before bloodshed.  A pre-emptive strike on the IRI will not be an Osirak raid.  Do we really want another major military engagement in the Middle East?  Further, under this deal, inspections will provide substantial additional intelligence should military action be warranted and will also provide justification for war should it be required.
            My answer to your question . . . yes.  I think a bad deal is better than no deal.  ‘No deal’ will not alter IRI conduct.  The intelligence and public information generated by inspections under the deal offer better potential than ‘no deal.’
  “That’s just my opinion, but I could be wrong.”
  I trust all’s well in Prescott.  My very best wishes to you, Luida and family.  Take care and enjoy.
Cheers,
Cap


Another contribution:
“This embodies my objection to the blog.”
“Why Americans Know So Much About Sports But So Little About World Affairs – The way the system is set up, there is virtually nothing people can do anyway to influence the real world.”
by Noam Chomsky
Noam Chomsky's Official Site
Published: September 15, 2014
My response:
            Interesting perspective.  The point of democracy is the free expression of opinions, doubts, perspective, ideas, proposals and such, until some form of resonance takes hold and convinces more to adopt any particular concept.  Chomsky talks about credentials to speak on topics.  I have only one credential – I am a citizen, period.  Lastly, this seems like a particular fatalistic view of life in general.
  . . follow-up comment:
“Read carefully. Chomsky's point is that the credential centers on supporting received ideas. What Chomsky supports is actual, documentable facts obtained by diligent study. I share that. Much that credentialed experts put out is not supported by empirical research or documented experience, and both Chomsky and I have an issue with that.”
 . . . my follow-up response:
Calvin,
            I understood Chomsky’s words quite well as I have understood your words.  History is replete with examples of opinion and rhetoric with just enough, carefully selected facts to make the argued position appear credible – it is often called propaganda.  We have yet another example in this week’s Update.  Our task is to find contrasting opinions and other facts to judge the worthiness of opinions offered.

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

20 July 2015

Update no.709

Update from the Heartland
No.709
13.7.15 – 19.7.15
To all,

            The follow-up news items:
-- The Greek Parliament approved (229 of the nation's 300-seat assembly) a crucial set of austerity measures required for a eurozone bailout package [704], after Greek voters rejected austerity measures [707].  Banks opened on Monday morning, with some limits on withdrawals by Greek citizens.  I suspect this flurry of activity simply kicked the can down the road.  We will return to this point, again.
-- The jury in the Aurora, Colorado, mass-shooting case (20.7.2012) [554/55] found the shooter guilty on all counts and specifically rejected the defendant’s insanity defense.  The sentencing phase begins.
-- President Obama announced an agreement with the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI), regarding the Middle Eastern theocracy’s nuclear development program and specifically its nuclear weapons objectives.  Despite the very wrong letter by 47 U.S. senators [691] and per the previously agreed ‘framework’ [694], the P5+1 Group {People’s Republic of China (PRC), France, Russia, United Kingdom, and United States, plus Germany, i.e., the United Nations Security Council Permanent Members + Germany} [well actually, rather than P5+1, it is actually EU/EU3 + 3] reached agreement with the IRI.  The government has submitted the agreement to Congress for the required 60-day review in accordance with the recently passed Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015 [PL 114-017; 129 Stat. xxx], which begins on Monday, 20.July.2015.  The congressional review promises to be quite contentious.  I have not reviewed the public document, as yet.  However, when the alternative is war, diplomacy is worth the attempt.  Something is better than nothing.  Let us give the President credit for the courage to attempt achieving acceptable results without bloodshed.  Further, let us give peace a chance.

            In the continuing Greek tragedy of contemporary times, we have another interesting opinion.
“An Empire Strikes Back: Germany and the Greek Crisis”
by George Friedman
Strategic Forecasting, Inc. (Stratfor)
Published: JULY 14, 2015; 08:00 GMT
Friedman concluded: “What else could Germany do? What else could Greece do? The tragedy of geopolitical reality is that what will happen has little to do with what statesmen wanted when they started out.”  Friedman’s conclusion seems to summarize quite succinctly what many of us have discussed in depth.  Perhaps, the approved changes (see above) will enable the Greeks to take a few steps back from the brink.  We shall see.

            I participated with several other contributors in an extended thread of debate with respect to a couple of YouTube videos constructed and delivered in the best Goebbels-esque propaganda diatribe form, predicting the imminent demise of civilization after the Supreme Court’s ruling in the case of Obergefell v. Hodges [576 U.S. ___ (2015)][706].  I have not yet finished my review of Obergefell, so I will hold my opinion on the Court’s decision, pending that review.  Here, I chose to share one paragraph of my contribution to the subject exchange.
            The issue is NOT same-sex marriage; that is simply the vehicle of convenience.  The issue here is, freedom of choice and equal protection under the law for ALL citizens . . . not just those who conform to the dicta of the majority.  w]here do we draw the line with respect to a citizen’s freedom of choice.  The answer is, the line is NOT ours to draw as long as an individual’s choices do not cause injury to another person, damage another person’s property, or endanger public safety.  The ugly thing about freedom . . . everyone does not make choices of which we approve.  Some of the choices of others are disgusting, disappointing, confusing, offensive and otherwise contemptible.  We have not, cannot and never will be able to enforce morality . . . that is the domain of parental teaching, religion, and other developers of what governs private choices in each individual soul.

            News from the economic front:
-- The PRC reported 7% GDP growth in 2Q2015.  The Wall Street Journal also reported that economists are beginning to question the veracity of the PRC’s economic statistics and reporting given other negative indicators.
-- Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen said, "If the economy evolves as we expect, economic conditions likely would make it appropriate at some point this year to raise the federal funds rate target, thereby beginning to normalize the stance of monetary policy."

            Continuation from Update no.707:
[NOTE: What follows in this section is a personal exchange between friends.  I struggled with the decision to include this exchange in a public forum, yet, at the end of the day, this is reality and in that it may be helpful to other readers of this humble forum.]
 . . . Round three:
“Enough is enough. I will discuss facts and likely outcomes, but reaching moral judgments based on the opinions of people not interested in reality no longer interests me. Please unsubscribe me.”
 . . . my response to round three:
            I am terribly sorry our intercourse struck you to this extent.  You have been a prized and valuable contributor to this humble forum for many years.  I would truly hate to lose your insight and perspective.  While we do not agree on many topics, we respectfully argue our views.  Please reconsider.  I trust whatever compelled you to this separation will pass, and you will rejoin the Update.  We have shared many things over the years.
. . . Round four:
“The value of contributing to this blog is that it's a public discussion of issues and ideas. The drawback is that you refuse to seek out facts to make a sound basis for that discussion. You ignore logic, formal or otherwise, when it suits your ‘perspective’ to do so. (You have a college education and a broad experience; I assume you know at least the basics of logic.) I will not continue to argue from imagination or from sources who prefer belief to knowledge as the basis for understanding.
“This does not mean I do not wish to continue our friendship. Privately, we have a more rewarding discussion of ideas and experiences. I just mean that I will not continue futile public discussions. I do not know whether I am finding success with your audience or not. Most of them do not contribute to the discussion, and some who do are either too specialized in their subjects or simply too irrational to add to my understanding.”
 . . . my response to round four:
            The temptation to reply at the personal level was difficult to resist, but I shall endeavor mightily to do so.  Since we are doling out criticism in the spirit of Sir Winston’s wisdom, I shall offer mine.
            The impression I am left with in this exchange is the bully’s pouting on not getting his way.  I trust my impression is wrong, but that is what I am left with.
            I am but a humble and flawed man with limited capacity to absorb as much as he can in the available time he possesses.  There is no question or doubt whatsoever that I am incapable of gathering sufficient facts to satisfy everyone, anyone or even myself, but I do the best I can.  I form an opinion based on the facts I am able to acquire and I remain steadfastly open and receptive to anyone who can offer better information.
            At the end of the day, my opinion matters not a whit.  I hold no position of authority or even influence.  I have no access to sensitive information.  I command no legion of troops or bodies beyond myself, and even that is questionable when Jeanne decides to assert herself.
            We clearly have not and will not agree on many topics as your body of facts and your perspective of those facts will inevitably be different, and perhaps even radically different, from mine.  Yet, I have always presented your opinions in their full glory without editing or abridgment, because I value your insight and unique view of issues . . . because they are different from mine and offer a contrast for readers of this Blog.
            I shall take your criticism in the spirit it was offered.  I accept and acknowledge my feeble limitations.  I trust you will find the courage to look beyond my foibles and find some modicum of worth in my blatantly biased opinions.
            Yes, our private discussions have been enormously rewarding for me as well.  I truly hope we have many more.  Most readers of the Update choose not to contribute for their personal reasons – perhaps, political correctness, or sensitivity with respect to social intercourse, or maybe even indifference or laziness, I do not know.  However, I have rarely had someone unsubscribe (disappear, yes).
            Lastly, I write this Blog for myself. . . not for compensation, not for kudos.  My hope is that someone will respond and disagree with me, so we can have some form of public debate on issues of our time.  I recognized and acknowledged at the outset of this Blog that some of my opinions would be controversial, upsetting, disgusting and even inducements to anger; that is the price I pay for public words; but, public debate is just too bloody important for a viable democracy and freedom.  I was and continue to be hopeful that readers will absorb, think and do what they will with the information and opinions offered.
 . . . Round five:
“Calling me a bully is as unjustified as it is irrelevant. Claiming inability to understand the issues or do some level of research is false modesty at its very worst, an excuse for your own unwillingness to consider facts.”
 . . . my response to round five:
            “The [gentleman] doth protest too much, methinks.”
            I specifically did not call you a bully.  I simply expressed how your words made me feel.
            I would respectfully suggest you back off the accusations.  They are not worthy of your intellect.  There has never been an unwillingness to learn on my part, only a finite limit to my capacity.  In that fault, I freely accept culpability, no accusations needed.
            So, let’s move on.  The sensitivity is making me tense.

            Comments and contributions from Update no.708:
“Thought you might enjoy reading this article. I found it beautifully articulated. Those Brits know English.”
"A Point of View: Why are opponents of gay marriage so sure they're right?”
Anonymous
BBC
Published: 10 July 2015
My reply:
            Interesting article.  Thx.  Whomever wrote the essay is certainly more articulate than me, and with equal certainty, I agree.  Since the Civil Rights Act of 1964 [PL 88-352, 78 Stat. 241], it has been against the law to discriminate in public facilities like stores, restaurants and transportation {Title III [78 Stat. 246]}.  The fundamentalists and strict constructionists have argued the CRA does not explicitly list sexual orientation and/or gender identity as covered classes; therefore, it does not apply. To me, such logic ignores the spirit of the law.  They had a viable, although disturbing, argument up to the Supremes’ ruling in Romer v. Evans [517 U.S. 620 (1996); 20.5.1996] and definitely by Lawrence v. Texas [539 U.S. 558 (2003); 26.6.2003], when the Court clearly established that non-heterosexual citizens were covered under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment; which in turn means CRA applies to non-heterosexual citizens.  It will just take us a little longer to achieve equal rights for all citizens.  I really like the last two (2) sentences.  Cults of certainty can only persecute or be persecuted.  Communities of common doubt can always co-exist.  Interesting observation.  Long journeys begin with small steps.  The journey continues. 
 . . . follow-up comment:
“Yes, the last two sentences really are powerful.
“We just got back from the Galapagos Islands.  Here are way more pictures than you want to spend time looking at...”
[NOTE: The link directly above offers an extraordinary photo essay worthy of the second survey voyage of HMS Beagle (27.12.1831 – 2.10.1836)]

Another contribution:
“The F-84 was interesting- I noted the paint scheme on bare metal and figured it was from the 50’s.  Then it came to me as I had read a number of articles that discussed the plane.  During the Cold War, a number of NATO air forces employed the F-84 in various models, notably the Luftwaffe, and de Koninklijke Luchtmacht (Netherlands) and the Luftforsvaret (RNoAF)- the latter too for a longer time than the USAF used the plane. Even the Armée de l'Air used the F-84 when France was integrated into NATO forces.”
My response:
            The F-84 did not see much success in the U.S.  Perhaps the international operators took advantage of discounted prices.  However you recognized the museum display example, you did and that’s what counts.

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

13 July 2015

Update no.708

Update from the Heartland
No.708
6.7.15 – 12.7.15
To all,
            The follow-up news items:
-- On Tuesday, as Governor Sam Brownback of Kansas continues his obfuscation [707] in the wake of the Supreme Court’s Obergefell v. Hodges [576 U.S. ___ (2015)][706] decision, our esteemed governor (he said sarcastically) issued Executive Order 15-05, titled: “Preservation and Protection of Religious Freedom,” protecting the religious freedom of Kansas clergy and religious organizations.  I suspect our good ol’ buddy Sam may well move the bar far higher in the hypocrisy and cynicism departments.  In contrast to his executive order this week, I will remind readers of his actions five months ago, when he issued Executive Order 15-01 [687], which rescinded Executive Order 07-24 and removed state legal protections for citizens based on sexual orientation and/or gender identity.  He eagerly extended protections based on religion (a hypothetical discrimination) while he denied protections based on sexual orientation (a very real, palpable, persistent discrimination).  This governor has no qualms whatsoever and certainly no discernible constitutional scruples when it comes to pandering to the religious right and social conservatives.  He shall not prevail.  We shall overcome.

            Since I voiced my counter-opinion to Cal Thomas in last week’s Update [707], it is only fair that I acknowledge that I agree with Cal in this week’s opinion.
“‘Culture wars’ well-intentioned but a mistake”
by Cal Thomas – Tribune
Wichita Eagle
Published: JULY 7, 2015
Cal’s opening two sentences, “The ‘culture wars,’ while well-intentioned, were a mistake from the beginning.  Evangelical Christians, whose Leader said, ‘My Kingdom is not of this world,’ thought they could organize people of like mind and like faith and create a voting bloc to elect people who would impose something resembling that other kingdom on people who do not see themselves as members of that kingdom.”  The key word in those two sentences is the word “impose.”  As the reader will note in the Comment section below, the political and social clash between religion and freedom persists and will remain a part of our social intercourse until we reach the day when we respect the freedom of choice of all citizens, and reject the temptation of projecting our moral values on other citizens and denying their freedom of choice.  While I do not share Cal’s perspective or rationale for his opinion, the conclusion is the same – fundamentalist Christians (or any other fundamentalist religious persuasion) were and are wrong in their attempt to impose their moral values on the private choices of other citizens.

            A friend and frequent contributor sent along the article below in furtherance of our on-going debate surrounding the Greece debt situation:
“Radical austerity’s brutal lies: How Krugman and Chomsky saw through dehumanizing neoliberal spin – The battle in Greece is identical to the one we need to be waging right here for fairness over markets and banks”
by Patrick L. Smith
salon.com
Published: WEDNESDAY, JUL 8, 2015; 06:00 PM CDT
As I read Smith’s words, I wanted to just ignore the message.  I felt anger.  There is no debate that austerity in Greece is hurting those Greek citizens who can least afford to endure austerity measures.  Yet, Smith focuses solely on the “suffering” under austerity measures, while ignoring the reality that Greece sucked down €317B in a matter of a few years.  I doubt all that money went to the poor, or even a fraction of that amount.  Now, they have added audacity to their boldness as the Greek government has now requested another €59B in additional bailout funding.  The balls!   If there is a flaw in the EU’s approach to dealing with the Greek debt situation, it is in not investigating and prosecuting those who absorbed (stole) all that money.  Poor Greeks are NOT the problem.  In that, Smith, Krugman and Chomsky are NOT the problem either; they are simply chroniclers of reality. 

            Comments and contributions from Update no.707:
“Thank you Cap, very interesting travels and I'll be replying.
“Congratulations, you reached your Update No. 707--what a wonderful airliner, and an achievement on your part of compiling news items and commenting, for 707 times!!!!   That is great!”
My reply:
Darren,
            Thank you.  The B-707 was indeed a wonderful aircraft.  The Updates are my pleasure.  It has been a bonus that anyone else finds them useful.

Another comment:
“MiG-21, F-4, F-84 and I think a F-11 Tiger….or perhaps a Swedish Saab.”
My response:
            Excellent, my friend.  All correct on your first answer.  I really did not think anyone would get the F-84 Starstreak. Correct answers (left to right): F-4 Phantom II, MiG-21 Fishbed, F-11 Tiger, and F-84 Starstreak.

Another contribution:
“Great to read about another aeronautical themed museum—my favorite of museums.  Glad you enjoyed it.  Taking a stab at your pop quiz I have to say there is an F-4 Phantom II to the left, a MiG-21 in the center, and an F-104 Starfighter to the right of the MiG-21.  I can’t place the plane immediately to the right in the photo, the one with the red & white striped mid horizontal.  Without doing some research, it’s got me stumped.  But to make a wild guess I’m going to speculate that it could be an F-84, not a particularly aesthetically pleasing design of a plane, and one with a relatively short-lived career.
“Speaking of museums, my road trip over the weekend took me to Steamtown National Historical Site in Scranton, PA, a great museum for the train enthusiast.
“The Grexit.  No surprise they voted ‘No.’  Who are we to think they would vote intelligently, when we, as a general populace do not—witness the majority of Americans that vote for more ‘free stuff’ when they get the opportunity to do so, thus taking us further down the road to great civilization extinction.”
My reply:
            Yep, my choice as well.
            Well done on the pop quiz I must say.  Correct answers (left to right): F-4 Phantom II, MiG-21 Fishbed, F-11 Tiger, and F-84 Starstreak. 
            Not to be critical, since the clues were not overwhelming, there is no shock cone on that right inlet, so it could not be an F-104 Starfighter.  I didn’t think anyone would get the F-84.
            Steamtown . . . I’ll have to put that on my list.  Thx.
            Yeah, the Greek referendum vote was not surprising but still disappointing.  I’ll leave the American voter comment be for now.  The EU (and NATO) faces quite the conundrum.  Part of me says, fine, cut ‘em lose.  Stalin wanted Greece at the end of WW2 and nearly succeeded.  With Putin’s Stalin-esque actions of late, I imagine he would eagerly use his petro-dollars to seduce Greece into his lair and out of NATO . . . counter-point to the Ukraine.  We shall see.
 . . . a follow-up comment:
“Ah, yes, now when I go back and look at the picture I see that the wings are not long enough to be those of the Starfighter.  Now, I am upset that I missed that one.  I had forgotten about the F-11, and I believe they have one down at the Pima Air Museum in Blue Angel livery.”
 . . . my follow-up reply:
            No need to be upset, my friend.  I’m still amazed you got the F-84 on the first pass.  BTW, the display F-11 in Topeka is in Blue Angels livery as well.  They were flying F-11’s in my very first airshow at Moffett Field back in the 50’s . . . wow’d me then, still wow me today.
Cheers,
Cap
 . . . and the last word:
Subject:  RE: [External] Update no.707
From:  "Richard, John L SIK"
Date:  Wed, July 8, 2015 12:02 pm
To:  "cap@parlier.com"
“Pretty good quiz.  Until I missed the F-11 I would have said I excel at airplane identification.  Something was telling me it wasn’t right, but I rushed my F-104 answer to move on to the F-84, which was puzzling me more.”

An inserted contribution to further debate:
“I guess with Cap everything is wide open for ‘choice.’
“A line has to be drawn somewhere, and who determines that?
“For decades sodomy was a crime, and as I understand it, it is still a crime in places around America.
“Why?   Because it's long been recognized that homosexual behavior is a detriment to society.
“Don't give me this crap about it being freedom of choice.  Anything can be excused using that fuzzy logic.
WARNING!  EXPLICIT AND SICKENING, BUT SHOWS THE MINDSET WE'RE UP AGAINST
My response:
            Thank you for forwarding [the] comment.
            A couple of points to further the discussion:
1.  Morality is what we do when no one is watching, i.e., morality is between the individual and God (whatever god that may be meaningful to them).  Morality cannot be enforced; it can only be taught.
2.  There are limits to freedom of choice – an individual’s choice cannot cause injury to another person or damage another’s property.  Short of that boundary, we should protect the freedom of others to protect our own freedom.
3.  Homophobia is a taught & learned phenomenon.  Like all taught fears, they are predicated upon assumptions.  It is in those assumptions where this debate lays.
            I would like to hear (expose) how “homosexual behavior is a detriment to society”?  Perhaps, there is something I am no familiar with in this discussion.
Cheers,
Cap
P.S.: I can only surmise the contributor could not provide any detrimental effects on society produced or induced by homosexual behavior.  The image essay was intended to shock us.  Perhaps it did.  The location city chose to allow such public conduct, which is their choice entirely.  If any of us are offended or think we might be offended by such behavior, then our choice is to not look or not attend such events.  The individuals in that essay were exercising their freedom of choice and injured no one.  We must not forget that freedom is precious.  To constrain another citizen’s freedom is to restrict our freedom.  Freedom has no requirement that we must approve of the choices of others.
            Further, I chose to retain the explicit link offered by the contributor.  The associated, proffered warning should have been sufficient.  If not, I will offer my apologies and regret if the image essay contained in that link offended anyone.  My intent was not to offend anyone’s sensitivities.

Comment to the Blog:
“I did not receive an email advising me of this week's update. I found it this morning (Thursday). Then I wrote a great response, saving often, but somehow lost it. Losing a text document is new to me.
“Your writing on your motorcycle rides continues to excel. My quibble this week is that you give too much detail on the sprinkler; it distracts from the riding. You clearly enjoyed the museum as well.
“I was glad, but not surprised, at the solar flight across the Pacific. The figure of one ton of batteries startled me, though. Apparently the weight capacity of solar flight has improved.
“The situation of the Greeks (people, not necessarily government) today resembles those of the USA in the Great Depression and of postwar Germany in the early 1950s. Both of those were resolved by Keynesian economics after attempts at austerity. Austerity, always imposed on others and not on those in charge, is a moral value that has proven flawed as policy. Severe austerity results in suffering (real suffering, not merely economizing) and eventual revolt.
“Cal Thomas may be dismissed as a thinker. He is merely one of the opportunists who profit by stirring up the fears of the less educated and more fearful. Cap, please remember that every American is allowed to express opinions, but that does not mean that every opinion is of equal value.
“Governor Brownback and others who object to carrying out Constitutional law probably need to find jobs where that will not be an issue, if such jobs exist. Therapy might help, too.
“The F-35 exemplifies President Eisenhower's concern with the military-industrial complex. The job could have been done better and cheaper but was not. Underlying that is the question of whether fighter planes are still a good investment in general. The nature of warfare is changing.
“Two notes on unemployment: (a) the U.S. unemployment rate is a limited resource. It fails to account for people no longer looking for work. Thus, the unemployment rate does not reflect the true state of employment but only the rate of change. (b) Many U.S. jobs have not moved to other nations but have been replaced by technology. We must somehow adapt to that.
“BP will not suffer financially from their $18.7 billion fine for the Deepwater Horizon disaster. They have 18 years to invest money and pay the fines from their returns. On top of that, they will get a tax break on those payments. That, of course, only applies if BP's lawyers do not get them out of the fine. Ordinary people have to pay for their destructive mistakes. Corporations are not people.”
My response to the Blog:
            I checked my Sent file, and you are on the addy line for the notice, as always.  Not sure what the problem was this week, but I’m glad you checked and contributed.
            Just trying to be sufficiently descriptive.  Criticism noted.  Glad you continue to enjoy my little travelogues.
            Re: Solar Impulse 2.  Indeed, the battery weight surprised me.  They clearly have engineered the aircraft well.  They’re not quite across the Pacific . . . only to Hawaii, over half way, but not quite all the way.
            Re: Greece.  OK.  Agreed.  The Greek politicians and bosses are not likely suffering, and workin’ folk are suffering.  The austerity imposed on Greece is not austerity for austerity’s sake; it is meant to be an inducement to reform and restructure Greek society so that they can live within their means.  An expectation that Greeks should live like Germans is not realistic or viable.  I still have not seen a solution from you.  Should we just write-off the entire massive debt [€317B, 177% Greek GDP, OMG] that enabled “important” people to become more wealthy and less fortunate folks to enjoy a nice cushy retirement with a generous pension and no work?  If all the past largesse is not pared down to fit within their revenue stream, how do you think they can ever attain stability?  Should German and France simple bite the bullet an pay for Greece’s obscene largesse?  Writing off the debt will not solve the problem(s).
            Re: Cal Thomas.  I read and respond to socially conservative voices as I do liberal opinions.  It is important to have contrast.
            Re: Brownback & his cronies.  They are another kettle of fish that stinks.  I will be grateful when he is unemployed.
            Re: F-35.  This is an interesting issue . . . not so easily dismissed.  The F-35 is not corporate welfare.  It was perhaps an overly ambitious technical objective, but it is necessary.
            Re: unemployment.  OK.  Agreed, again.  So, then, how do we separate those willing to work and not looking, from those who are simply unwilling to work, period?  In metrics such as these, we need to draw the line somewhere and remain consistent.  Yes, absolutely; we just adjust to advancing technology.
            Re: BP.  Got that right.  Spot on!
 . . . follow-up comment:
“Either your sources are failing you or you are just not paying attention. We are not, today, discussing Greeks retiring without working or living ‘like Germans’ (telling phrase). We're talking about starvation, unpaid rents, complete lack of transportation, and other serious issues resulting from austerity. The term ‘inducement to reform’ translates directly to punishment, and that is the attitude underlying most of our disagreements. Punishment fails as an inducement in most cases, and that moralistic attitude blinds its user to the reality of its results. That makes the EU resemble the United States. Both want others to remain allied to us while we dish out suffering. Not gonna happen in the long run. The Greek government has caved in this time, but the issue will not go away.
“My central point about the F-35 is that, necessary or not, vast sums of money have been poured into it amounting to overpayment. The development of this particular plane has been grossly inefficient and slow, but the money has flowed as if the corporations involved were performing efficiently and effectively. How is that not corporate welfare? From my viewpoint, the necessity is also debatable in the light of current trends in warfare, including small-scale fighting and drones.
“Cal Thomas and his kind are not due equal consideration. They cannot support their moralistic opinions with sound information. Science, other carefully derived quantitative studies, and even history carry no meaning to them. I want my ideas to be based on reality, not on what makes a nice living for people with a knack for criticizing others. I will disregard the lunatics on Fox News, talk radio, etc., unless a day comes when they can support their blathering with verifiable facts. Let's remember that my degree is in communication; I know the potential for abuse of those skills.
“That judgmental attitude comes up again in the discussion of unemployment. I think I know why that approach is so common. It is a very successful tool for Republicans from Reagan to Ryan in getting people to vote against their own interests. I have seen that in person. People who need Social Security or food assistance for their physical survival vote for politicians they know will cut those programs in order to get back at the fellow down the road that the politicians say is abusing the system. The numbers do not support that, of course. Nobody would live on assistance if they could work, because work pays so much more. Even the minimum wage pays a good bit more in cash, even though that wage is so low that most minimum-wage workers still qualify for assistance. (Contrary to Jeb Bush's assumption, most minimum-wage employers never allow overtime pay.) The perception that someone else is taking advantage of society has been very convenient, but is basically false and not supported by fact. If a person does not pursue work, there is some reason for that other than laziness.”
 . . . my follow-up response:
            Re: Greece.  I make no claim to expansive, exhaustive sources or sufficient expenditure of my available attention.  What we are discussing is perspective.  Each of us chooses to see events as we wish to see them.  The implication I derive from your words is what is happening in Greece is somehow a sadistic punitive exercise for suffering’s sake.  NO ONE did this to Greece; Greece did this to themselves.  Greece has chosen to implement deeply socialist practices, which is perfectly fine by me; that is their choice entirely.  What they DO NOT have any right to do is expect the rest of Europe to pay for their largesse.  They chose to borrow money to pay for their extravagances far beyond their capacity to pay for the ‘benefits’ spread among their people and the corruption and complacency they chose to allow.  I am terribly sorry that anyone in Greece is suffering.  Nonetheless, the boil must be lanced to enable healing.
            Re: F-35.  Being somewhat familiar with defense development, the problem is ambitious objectives.  While I cannot refute claims of wasteful or inefficient spending, I do not see it as corporate welfare.  There is plenty to be critical of in that program, but corporate welfare is not one of those items.
            Re: Cal Thomas.  Diversity of opinion is important to all of us.  Contrast enables reconciliation of our opinions.
            Re: unemployment.  Well, interesting perspective.  You know, as I read your words, if taken to a logical conclusion, if true, there would be no crime.  If everyone wanted to work, they would.  But, more than a few choose to steal money rather than earn it.  The reasons for not seeking work are most likely many, complex and individually unique, so impossible to generalize.  Yet, we cannot eliminate laziness as one of those reasons.

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