Update no.741

Update from the Heartland

No.741

22.2.16 – 28.2.16

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

To all,

            Every once in a long while, special opportunities come along in our lifetimes.  Call them fate, karma, luck, happenstance, divine providence, or whatever anyone of us wishes to call them, we are presented with opportunities to grasp those moments.  We choose whether to do so.  The Churchill Archive, and National Churchill Library and Center, in cooperation with the George Washington University Libraries, sought volunteers to transcribe Prime Minister Winston Churchill’s handwritten, wartime, engagement diary into digital form to make that information available for public searches.  What makes this particular project more challenging rests upon the half dozen or more private secretaries who tended his calendar.  The differences in handwriting, notation practice, and frankly care in handwriting, often at hectic moments of history, give the humble transcriber significant obstacles of forensic effort.  Franklin Roosevelt’s engagement diary is already available.  The insight into the daily schedule of the wartime British prime minister (and American president) is fascinating, to say the least.

           The follow-up news items:

-- The continuing conflict between the United States Government (USG) and Apple, Inc. [740] has produced plenty of opinion(s).  A mere fraction of those opinions are offered in the Comment section below.  On Thursday, a day prior to the court-imposed deadline, Apple filed their motion to vacate the court’s prior search warrant.  The hearing date is scheduled for Tuesday, 22.March.2016.  Apple’s motion is compelling.  I trust the judge will vacate her prior order and void the USG’s effort against Apple for the constitutional reasons presented by Apple.  If U.S. Magistrate Judge Sheri Pym does so, I suspect the USG will press their argument through, perhaps around, the Appeals Court and to the U.S. Supreme Court.  I would rather see a negotiated solution rather than a court imposed outcome, either way.

           Only a day after someone leaked that the White House was vetting Governor Brian Edward Sandoval of Nevada for consideration to replace Associate Justice Scalia on the U.S. Supreme Court, he sent a written statement to the White House and Senate leaders “that I do not wish to be considered at this time.”  I can only imagine the telephone call(s) Sandoval received from the Republican National Committee and perhaps other Republican ‘leaders.’  The 52-year-old former federal district judge and member of the Republican Party must have felt enormous pressure.

            CNN hosted a Democratic Presidential Town Hall at the University of South Carolina School of Law Auditorium in Columbia, South Carolina, moderated by Chris Cuomo:

Bernie Sanders:

His three principal themes of his campaign:

1. Corrupt campaign finance system – billionaire’s buy elections and undermine American democracy, and almost all of the income and wealth goes to the top 1%.  He says we must overturn the disastrous Citizens United ruling.  Amen, brother!

2. Rigged economy – ordinary people are working longer hours for lower wages and almost none of the benefit.  He offers a convincing argument.

3. Broken criminal justice system – more people in jail than any other country on earth, largely citizens with dark skin pigmentation have borne the brunt of de facto bias in the broken system of which Bernie speaks.

Sanders argues, enough with establishment politics; we need a grass roots political revolution to do better.  He also repeatedly tells us, the top 1/10 of 1% possesses as much wealth as the bottom 90%, and they should pay their fair share.  The country belongs to all of us, not a handful of wealthy people.

Hillary Clinton:

She asked, “Why is she being held to a double, higher standard regarding disclosure of the transcripts of her paid speeches?”  She is correct to protest such conduct.

Chris asked about the kerfuffle over Beyoncé’s Super Bowl halftime performance, which BTW, I found nothing wrong; to me, some folks are complaining just to complain.  She raised the subject of Americans with dark skin pigmentation versus the police issue.  More training for the police.  What about education for those who feel they can be confrontational, belligerent, non-compliant with police?  While there are without a doubt bad cops, e.g., the Charleston officer who shot a man in the back, those bad cops do NOT give some folks license to defy police.  The re-training is not just for the police, it is also for those citizens who do not comply with police instructions.  If a citizen feels mistreated or unfairly dealt with, then file a complaint and follow-up, engage the Press, do just about anything, but do NOT argue with, run from, or defy the police . . . PERIOD!

            In her victory speech after handily winning the South Carolina primary election, Hillary said, “Despite what you hear, we don’t need to make America great, again.  America never stopped being great.  But, we do need to make America whole, again.”  Spot on, sister!  You know what, my sentiments precisely.

            So, now, according to Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson, President Obama was not black enough, which implies that of the past presidents and all of the current presidential candidates, only he can truly represent American citizens with dark skin pigmentation.  Really?!?  His statement . . . that Barack Obama was “raised white” somehow negates the President’s skin pigmentation and his empathy for the institutional racism that American citizens with dark skin pigmentation have endured since the inception of this Grand Republic simply defies logic and reason.  Carson’s disgusting comment further defiles this already ugly silly season.

            CNN also hosted the latest Republican Presidential Debate at the Opera House, Moore School of Music, University of Houston, in Houston, Texas, moderated by Wolf Blitzer.  Here are some random impressions from the night’s event.

The Republican front-runner consistently says, “Believe me,” as he shuffles through some yammering to virtually every question he is ever asked.  Well, Donald, unfortunately, I do not and cannot believe you.

This event, more than all the previous examples, brilliantly illuminates how deeply and pervasively one, single, blowhard can contaminate and corrupt a public event intended to inform the concerned and voting citizens.  The Donald has literally dragged the entire field into the gutter with him.  This is an empirical demonstration of the lowest common denominator in human behavior.

Ben Carson offered us the most memorable line: “Could somebody attack me, please?”  His point, he deserves equal time.  His statement clearly reflected the inordinate disparity in speaking time as a consequence of the reality of the point noted directly above.

At the bottom line, the Republican slugfest of ridiculous personal attacks has little practical value beyond the blood-sport of the gladiatorial games.  It would be far more entertaining, and perhaps even informative, if just one of those men had the rhetorical skills of Ronald Reagan or especially Winston Churchill.  The insult politics of the Republican front-runner just does not cut it with me.

            Surprise, surprise!  Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey and former presidential candidate endorsed the Republican front-runner this week.

            Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina summed this whole silly season quite succinctly.  “My party has gone bat shit crazy!”  Spot on, Lindsey!  This is what happens when a blowhard bully commandeers the stage.

            I refuse to single up on or focus on one preferred candidate as we are still in the primary phase of the silly season, and as an independent, non-partisan, I have no vote – no choice in this phase.  My state requires me to declare for one party or the other in order to vote in the primary election, and I refuse to do so.  I await my choice in November.

            I have been and remain an unabashed and unashamed supporter of equal rights, recognition and respect for non-heterosexual citizens in this Grand Republic and worldwide.  This week, I discovered the limits of my support.  Transgender activist Stephanie Mott filed a lawsuit against the Kansas Department of Health and Environment to change her gender on her birth certificate.  I understand the motive, but I cannot support the action.  A birth certificate is a state-sanctioned, snapshot, historic document.  It reflects the medical assessment of gender at the moment of birth, not what might happen subsequent to that event.  For transgender citizens, they should be able to ‘adjust’ their gender identity on a driver’s license, passport, or other identification medium as a ‘current’ document.  Changing a birth certificate is just wrong.

           Comments and contributions from Update no.740:

Comment to the Blog:

“This week we are mostly in agreement. Interesting event. I was a bit surprised to see you support Apple’s refusal to provide back-door access to all iPhones. I stand on my usual position that the necessary lack of transparency in spy work requires stronger controls over them than over agencies whose work can be monitored.

"Your discussion of the difference between truly ‘pro-life’ and merely ‘pro-birth’ positions excels.

“Religious views versus legal duty seems easily resolved in cases of public office. The holder of the office knowingly takes on a position dedicated to carrying out the law. That person has a moral duty to support the law in question, whether they are a Kentucky County Clerk or a Supreme Court Justice.

“I insert here my view of the fundamental difference between people calling themselves ‘conservative’ versus those using the label ‘liberal.’ I think in the last analysis conservatives see issues in terms of ‘good guys’ opposing ‘bad guys.’  Liberals are inclined to think in terms of the common good of all. Each view has its flaws. Who are the good guys or bad guys is a matter of individual perspective, as shown by the entire history of war.  The view of the common good is subject to both lack of understanding of others’ lives and corruption by power.  The long Communist experience in Russia illustrates that one.

“The really interesting contributor from last week was the last one shown.  Because I am older and liberal, I would rather he used different groupings, but his fundamental points work well. This looks and feels to me like an anti-Establishment year, much like 1968 or 1980.  However, if the Establishment’s candidate Hillary Clinton wins in the primaries, that will introduce major trouble.  I and many others will not vote for either Clinton or any GOP candidate. I see her as more of the same Democrat Party that has accomplished nearly nothing in 35 years. Nobody knows where that problem leads. (Clinton would face the same vehement opposition as Obama if elected.  Also, she will be beholden to her contributors, as all U.S. politicians are.)

“I have heard that acronym of FEAR (False Evidence Appearing Real) in circles where I listen respectfully, and my experience supports its validity.”

My response to the Blog:

            Re: Apple.  I’m not sure why you would be so surprised that I support Apple in this tiff.  I share your concern, and that of many others, regarding the intrusion of the USG into our lives.  The key in my opinion offered in Update no.740 is balance.  We must find a solution to this conundrum, which is precisely why I offered a solution to satisfy both requirements.

            Re: “pro-birth.”  Thanks mate.  Again, we must find balance.

            Re: religion.  Spot on, my friend.  The key in this topic is individual vs. position.  The President is no different from a military officer in uniform.  When I’m wearing a uniform, I no longer enjoy the right to espouse my personal opinion – my freedom of speech is curtailed, amended or restricted as I am a representative of a far larger organization – thus, the President or presidential candidates are no longer private citizens.

            Re: conservative v. liberal.  Interesting perspective.  The common good is an essential topic of debate.  Good point: intellectually, communism is the perfect state, i.e., we are all equal.  Yet, as we bear witness in every communist state and society, practically applied communism is extraordinarily unequal, and thus fails the most basic litmus test of freedom.

            Re: election.  I’ve not settled on a choice, as yet, and probably won’t until the choices are clear.

            Re: FEAR.  Indeed!  A common technique of the propagandist.

Another contribution:

“I don't think your limited experience with socialized medicine in England gave you a true representation of its pitfalls .. thankfully you never had a life or death affliction requiring a need for any immediate, specialized care .. plus who pays for all this free care?  Take a look at Greece and the horrendous financial burdens it has due in part to socialized healthcare ..”

My reply:

            Re: experience.  Well, at least, we have some experience; most folks have none.  Yes, you are quite correct; we did not face life or death medical issues while we were in England or while I was in Italy.  There are quite a few international subscribers to this humble forum, who have lived their entire lives under a public health care system.  Perhaps, this will inspire them to offer their experience(s) and opinion(s).

            Re: who pays?  The national treasury . . . all taxpayers.

            Re: Greece.  The fiscal, economic, social and political problems in Greece are far more pervasive, complex and deeper than just the health care system.  From my knowledge and perspective, the public health care system is minor compared to other far bigger elements of Greece’s problems.

            Whether anyone wishes to acknowledge reality, we are de facto paying for uninsured and underinsured patients by elevated charges for hospital and providers to cover unrecoverable expenses for services rendered but not paid for.  We all pay, or at least those of us with medical expenses (rather our insurance companies, and through them our premiums) pay for the uninsured and underinsured.  So, let’s not kid ourselves.  The root question is how better to manage medical expenses.

 . . . follow-up comment:

“I do agree that Greece has many financial issues and not just health care .. I am staying open-minded actually to healthcare options if a candidate can provide a good plan .. I pay 500 per month for my Cobra coverage .. would love to see it lowered but on the other hand am willing to pay this amount if my coverage stays as good as it has been .. I definitely don't use 500 a month so a good portion of what I pay goes toward other policy holders' care (and into the insurance company's pocket) ..have a good day !!”

 . . . and my follow-up reply:

            I am fortunate to be old enough for Medicare (which is not bad, from my perspective) and have supplemental medical coverage from my military service retirement.  We pay extra for dental insurance.  Thus, we are not directly involved in PPACA health care insurance exchanges or support.  I am not a fan of PPACA, primarily because it benefits the medical insurance companies in an inordinate way.  However, I will continue to laud PPACA for one principal – at least it is an attempt to fix the absurdity of the previous nonsense and the enormous hidden costs that were absolutely unmanageable.  Doing something is better than nothing.

            Any future reform, which is truly needed, must find the means to transition the current health care insurance system (companies) to a new, more competitive version.

A different contribution:

“Cap, good day to you mate and your ‘missis’. I thought that to be an exclusive U/K description. Ah well, we live and learn!

“Had a look at your MH370 link. There’s something of the Marie Celeste about this isn’t there-a mystery of its own.

“Will it ever be solved? When the one item of floating debris was found and proven didn’t we all expect some progress to be made? Oceanographers with a knowledge of the currents ascertaining to that part of the ocean surely could have traced back to a broad area of impact. Was that in fact calculated? Or am I being simplistic in the extreme? The thought of another ‘rogue’ pilot brings a chill to us all who fly. Buy Cap your hypotheses on this and a gentle shock free landing on the ocean is hard to swallow. Even at a flaps down landing speed or a deliberate stall onto the sea would surely produce considerable debris-much of which would be located.”

My response:

            Indeed!  I try to learn every day.

            Re: MH370.  Marie Celeste-esque . . . quite so.  I think that was the objective of the perpetrator.  I believe they have used every available tool to find the wreckage, including accessible defense assets.  Accident investigators have been using wind & current data to backtrack debris fields for a long time.  I do believe the Australians are doing the best they can.  But, as I said, it is a very small needle in a very large haystack.

            Re: controlled vs. uncontrolled ditching.  You are quite right.  Even a controlled ditching would leave debris, quite like a flaperon actually.  However, an uncontrolled ditching at 3, 4, 500 KIAS impact speed would result in the serious break-up of the wings, empennage and fuselage, opening up the baggage compartment and interior, allowing a plethora of floating objects.  It is the paucity of floating debris that leads me to the controlled ditching hypothesis.

Yet, another contribution:

     "As the original founder of The Conserberal Party almost two decades ago (a party of one as far as I know so far) when I first began describing myself and signing commentary as a 'Flaming Conserberal,'   I appreciate your own use of the term in  your response to one of your contributors.  

     "I don't recall ever before today seeing the term used by anyone else other than in direct response to something I said, but I can see why you used it in response to the contributor, who seemed to express impatience with or disdain for people who claim both fiscal and constitutional conservatism and liberal social views.

     "Perhaps you and i should take steps to formally establish the Conserberal Party, to distinguish ourselves and others from mere disgruntled Tea Party sympathizers (me??) and mere dedicated critics of both major political parties (you??)."

My reply:

            Re: “Conserberal Party.”  Sign me up.  What we have today is clearly failing, except anything is better than current is not an anything goes alternative.

A relevant Facebook exchange:

[NOTE: Due to the length and intertwining of this Facebook thread, I had to abridge the thread down to that portion I was engaged in during the exchange.]

“BOYCOTT Apple

“I don't own an apple device and unless Apple helps open the terrorist I-phone, I never will. If Apple is not on the side of the FBI, then they are on the side of the terrorists. How can they confuse privacy with an attempt to ‘connect the dots’ behind the San Bernardino shootings. 14 Americans died, what about their privacy and their right to live. The phone wasn't owned by the terrorists, it belongs to the City who has all the rights to hand over information an employee stored on it.”

 . . . .

My contribution to this thread:

We shall respectfully disagree. I wrote about this in my Blog last week -- Update from the Heartland No.740 (http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com). Apple is NOT the criminal here. We must find a balanced, better way to solve both halves of the problem. I offer a compromise that might work. The only thing I did not say, the applicant must pay the bill.

 . . . follow-up comment:

“The answer is simple. Apple should open the phone and give the FBI access to the information they need from this one phone. Apple does not need to give the FBI the program, tool or computer logic to by-pass the 10-attempt cliff. The phone can then be destroyed so no one can ‘mine’ for the means Apple uses to restore I-phone access when a customer forgets his /her password.”

 . . . my follow-up response:

            Did you read my proposed solution?  [in Update no.740]

            The problem is, as expressed by Apple’s Cook, the backdoor does not exist; it is not a simple switch.  It would have to be created.  Once created, the potential of that “Mod” leaking to others increases exponentially and rapidly.  The beauty of the security system on the iPhone is its simplicity and unilateral implementation, i.e., even Apple does not possess tool(s) to circumvent the security provisions.  Only the user has the key.

 . . . Round three:

“Yes I did read your proposed solution. My question remains, if a customer forgets his password does he throw his I-phone away or does Apple, after receiving proof of ownership, unlock the phone?”

 . . . a third party contribution interjected:

“If you forget your password and haven't backed your info up with Cloud or computer, your information on iPhone is lost. You have to erase the phone completely to use it again. Then you proceed to download your backed up info and reassign a new password. Of course, you can choose not to use password security or use fingerprint... But, a locked iPhone without the password is not accessible. If an incorrect password is tried too many times, the phone data is automatically erased. If your phone is stolen, without the password, your information is completely secured.”

 . . . original contributor’s reply:

“WOW, An easy to understand explanation.”

 . . . third party’s answer:

“Thanks .. It's also true for my iPad. Have a great day!!”

 . . . my reply to the ancillary thread:

[The Third Party] is precisely correct! I use the code on my iPhone and my iPad. I do not want that protection compromised. [M]y proposed solution is a possible way to open that phone. But, frankly, I want it to be a very expensive process, so governments must way the cost-benefit of opening an iPhone. And, yes, 10 failed attempts = all gone, no recovery possible, ever. Ingenious!

 . . . Round four:

‪Roger Carlin‪

“It will be interesting how this get's resolved. What is the cost to resolve a terrorist plot and expose the participants? Last I checked we are at war with ISIS and I would expect Apple to cooperate.”

 . . . my response to round four:

Apple has been and continues to cooperate within their capacity to do so. They have already delivered the last back-up save on iCloud for the subject iPhone, but that was six (6) weeks prior to the attack. My cost comment was more to NYPD et al who hold 260+ iPhones in criminal cases awaiting the outcome of this matter.

 . . . the third party addition:

“Whew! My devilish lifestyle is safe... The iPhone is a mini computer that has a phone app. I shop online, bank online, pay bills online, medical records are online .... and all the businesses that use these small devices... The good guys are also using the iPhone because of the security it offers. That being said I believe a solution will be found .. but this is not about one phone. If the FBI, et al would file legal documentation stating this is a one-time request, Apple would comply. I think Apple will open this one phone and then the legalities will proceed to find a solution to the bigger problem. The courts will have to decide where the line is to be drawn regarding privacy and security.”

 . . . the original contributor’s final comment:

“I like your solution. Hope the FBI and Apple are listening, of course they are!”

And, one last contribution:

“Seeing the topic immediately—the Apple issue—and before reading further, I knew what position you would take—as I know you are a stout proponent of privacy rights—and knew I would be at odds with you because my first inclination would be to do everything possible to seek out and ‘terminate with extreme prejudice’ any additional terrorists associated with this insidious act.  However, I have turned about 180 degrees from my first feelings on this.  But, don’t get me wrong for I still want justice, and then some, but I have come to embrace—might be a little strong verb for me—the privacy rights issues you bring forth.  We must ensure that our privacy rights are protected.  We can ill afford to open up the door to Gestapo like or Stallinesque abuses regarding privacy.  We have seen abuses under our present presidential regime with sanctioned—directed and/or condoned by virtue of not holding those responsible—IRS targeting of conservative individuals and organizations.  Who knows what Obamaesque presidential regimes might come along in the future and decide to use data obtained from iPhones to help the IRS target conservative organizations or conservative individuals, or use that data for other nefarious political means to increase their voter base.  Okay, Cap, I know you’re thinking here we go again, but please indulge me as perhaps I over exaggerate potential abuses of power and I side with you on privacy rights protection.  As someone who would relish the opportunity to have any of the perpetrators in the crosshairs and pull the trigger, I would dearly love to be the implementer of justice.  But as a student of history and a present day witness to presidential abuses of power I understand fully the deleterious outcomes that can result from abuses of power with regard to privacy rights.  As an Apple stockholder, I have been much conflicted by this issue.  What it boils down to is: What cost justice?  If Apple relents, ancillary perpetrators may be brought to justice, but only time will tell what the true cost may be, and if ‘The past is prologue’ as the saying goes the cost could be very high.”

My response:

            It is good that you have come around.

            Likewise, I fully support the USG’s authority to seek proper warrants under the 4th Amendment to prosecute crimes against the public good and threats to national security.  The 4th Amendment does NOT authorize the USG to threaten the fundamental right to privacy of millions of citizens to play out one potential intelligence lead – not confirmed . . . potential.  I believe the USG is going to pursue this case to the Supreme Court in their effort to obtain the Court’s sanction for such extraordinary and expansive 4th Amendment authority.  I have faith the SCOTUS will not side with the USG.

            Regardless, there must be a solution to both requirements . . . thus, my proposed solution.  I want the USG to have what is on that particular iPhone.  I am not willing to compromise the privacy of millions of citizens without the appropriate safeguards.  Let’s find a solution rather than bludgeon Apple, Inc., and the rest of us who rely upon the security provisions of Apple products.

            Re: USG abuses.  Your implicit supposition that IRS abuses are a creation and manifestation of the current administration is not consistent with history.  What they did was wrong!  They should be prosecuted.  But, they are not the first and will not be the last to abuse Executive Power.

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

Cheers,

Cap                        :-)