Update no.779

Update from the Heartland

No.779

14.11.16 – 20.11.16

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

To all,

            President Barack Obama has shown us grace and dignity in accepting the outcome of the election, just as Bush (43) did at the end of his second term.  This is a measure of the man.  I, for one, truly appreciate the dignity and respect President Obama has brought to the office.  Thank you, Mister President.

            I lifted the following opinion from FaceBook with permission and continued our exchange on the topic with a long term, friend, colleague, and fellow warrior.

Kevin E. Ready Sr.

November 14 at 12:35pm ·

“About the Electoral College - The gibberish you hear this week about the Electoral College being a high-minded or gloriously successful attempt at political stability is mainly a bunch of BS. Few people realize that the primary reason for the Electoral College system in the original U.S. Constitution was for the protection of slavery and slave owning states. The great compromise that was reached over the counting of slaves in the Census carried over to the allotment of seats in Congress and therefore to the number of Electors each state got. The higher population Northern states had their number of actual voters offset with the 3/5ths population count given to each nonvoting slave in the South.  So, in 1800-1860, Virginia had more Electoral votes than the large northern states like Pennsylvania and New York even though the popular vote would be higher in the Northern states. Thus, five of the first six Presidents were slave-owning Southerners. Thomas Jefferson lost the popular vote to Aaron Burr, but won the Electoral College based upon the result of the 3/5ths slave vote weight of the Electoral College. With the end of slavery this purpose for the Electoral College dimmed, but in recent years the influx of undocumented immigrants has again over-weighted the Electoral College toward California, Texas and other states with high numbers of nonvoting undocumented residents. Those 13,000,000 undocumented immigrants are counted in the U.S. Census and pump up the numbers of Electoral College clout for the primarily Sun-Belt and industrial states that are heavy in un-document-eds.

 . . . to which I replied:

            On this, we shall respectfully disagree.  I think the Founders / Framers saw very real reasons for the Electoral College system, and this election demonstrated the wisdom of that reasoning.

            You cited one key sliver of history in the early census basis of representation.  Heck, slavery was sanctioned in the Constitution (Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3) until 6.December.1865.  Further, the only citizens qualified to vote were white, male, property owners until 9.July.1868, and even that date is questionable for several reasons and probably was not realized until the Voting Rights Act of 1965 [PL 89-110; 79 Stat. 437; 6.August.1965].  Some would argue we have still not attained open and free elections for all citizens, e.g., voter suppression efforts in more than a few states.

            The Electoral College is an attempt to encourage small states and to ensure the residents of those states are heard.  The Senate was created for the exact same reason – all states are equal regardless of population.  The system is NOT perfect or even flawless, but it is a bona fide effort to hear minority voices.

            Our system of governance has never been about simple, majority rule.  A host of checks and balances were established to ensure the minority is heard and a part of any compromise.  The Bill of Rights was ratified to protect the individual (and states) from the power of the federal government.

            For the record, I do not like the outcome of our most recent election.  It is quite unfortunate that the candidate who achieved a substantial popular vote margin failed to appeal to a larger portion of this Grand Republic.  The county election map is very telling.

            Also for the record, I cannot support a constitutional amendment to eliminate the Electoral College and establish a simple, popular vote basis for the presidency.

 . . . with the contributor’s follow-up comment:

“All of your points are valid. As on most things, we are not far apart, except, on this, as to the ultimate decision. My analysis of the history basis of the E.C. is valid, the impact to slaveholding states was the reason given for the gestation of the E.C. by its creators. Getting rid of the E.C. now would indeed cause a diminution of focus on several relatively small states, but the opposite side of that coin would certainly be a larger canvas for the candidates and a voice for great masses of voters in larger states. On the other hand, California, Florida and Texas probably each get a 7-10% bump in E.C. clout by all the illegals and other non-voting immigrants who pump up the U.S. Census. I would think a level playing field in voting power per voter would be more important to smaller states than the great opportunity to have candidate visits every four years. Why does wishy-washy New Hampshire get a rich, robust presidential campaign while solidly Blue Vermont next door with the same population is a campaign orphan?

“Yes, Senate membership is a leveler built in, to stabilize a federal system of vastly different sized states [thank you Hamilton]. But, that artificial smoothing of the popular versus E.C. vote margins is vastly different from the Senate representation and not as protective of any particular state, as small states with unified political constituencies are diminished also.  While the popular to E.C. vote differences of the 2016 and 2000 elections (or even the 1800 election) were small in a total percentage range, it is quite easy to see how a modest majority of voters in many small Red States could offset a vast political will in larger, more progressive states. If a Bernie Sanders type candidate won huge margins in ten to twenty states representing 60-70% of the U.S. voters were to lose to a Trump/Goldwater/Wallace type candidate who was only modestly popular in states with 51+% of the E.C. votes, it could truly destabilize our democracy.  Our democratic experiment of America has survived 230 years, but students of history see that no nation station state has managed to endure without radical restructuring from time to time, usually brought on by an internal conflict or weakness. Ask our cousins in 1790 France, 1919 Austria, 1917 Russia, 1900-1940 China, Renaissance Holy Roman Empire, or 1650 Britain how it feels for the internal conflicts of a solid, great nation to come unraveled. Those citizens could not imagine how their established political system and societal structure could become chaos and anarchy in a few short months and years. A popular election of the nation’s leader would prevent a minority of the nation’s populace from ramming home a leader unsuited to the vast majority of the nation’s citizens.”

 . . . along with my reply:

            Re: census.  If you are correct, a law to properly differentiate citizenship status for determination of representation and electoral vote count can be passed.

            Candidates choose to campaign in the form, extent and duration they feel is best for them.  IMHO, Hillary made a fatal mistake in limiting her campaign to the perceived “battleground states,” and she lost the so-called “blue wall” safe states.  Donald must be given credit for spreading his campaign efforts to more states.  The fault in this election was not the Electoral College system or wishy-washy New Hampshire, but far too narrow campaign choices that did not work out as expected.

            Yes, I agree, that is how our system works.  There are a myriad of potential combinations that could be perceived as unfair for one faction or another.  The rules are the rules, and have been the rules for decades and dozens of elections.  It is unfortunate the campaign staff advising Hillary gave her flawed counsel.

            I will say Trump is quite likely to gloat – winner-winner-chicken-dinner – and also quite likely, to fail to recognize that he did not win the popular vote by a significant margin.  Whatever mandate he has is very thin.  Given his personality flaws, he is unlikely to recognize the reality of this election.

            Throwing out two and a quarter centuries of history because we did not like the outcome of one election does not seem like a reasonable action.

            As for me, I support retaining the rules that have gotten this Grand Republic this far.

P.S.: This debate shall continue.

            A friend sent me the URL (below) for a video s/he knew I would respond to in principle.  The video is from a PBS Point Taken program broadcast last year.

“Point Taken: Should Paying for Sex be a Crime?”

by OZY Editors

The Daily Dose

Published: JUN 05 2016

http://www.ozy.com/wildcard/point-taken-should-paying-for-sex-be-a-crime/69977?utm_source=AOL1&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=cpc

The article had this subtitle:

“Why You Should Care – Because sex work is part of every economy.”

            I will not recount or argue the points taken by the panel.  I encourage everyone to listen to the arguments on both side presented in the video.  As it played out, neither side of the argument spoke to the elements that matter most to me.

            First and foremost: freedom of choice.  I know our Judeo-Christian principles and Victorian morality consider any sex in any form outside of adult, heterosexual, monogamous-for-life marriage for procreation only to be a sin against God, a crime under our morality laws, and thus, should be prohibited in any civilized society.  I have a long-standing history of resistance to such moral projection upon all citizens within a free society, as we profess to be.  We must accept that all citizens do not accept that sex is for marital procreation only.

            Second: decriminalization and legalization versus regulation.  As with most (if not all) behaviors that were made criminal, simple decriminalization and/or legalization may seem like a reasonable half-step; however, that simple action often makes matters worse, not better.  Making consumption of alcohol or psychotropic substances, or prostitution a crime has NOT altered the drive of some citizens to violate those morality laws.  In essence, those laws were wrong at the outset, since the activity is largely a personal choice carried out in private.

            Third: detractors.  Serious regulation, similar to Nevada, would likely significantly reduce or eliminate many of the negative elements raised by the panel.  Regulation essentially exposes an activity to proper public scrutiny.  I do not debate the negative aspects highlighted by the panel.  I only suggest that punishment is not that path to reducing or eliminating those negative elements.

            By our passage and enforcement of morality laws, WE created a criminal subculture that naturally sprang up to fulfill consumer demand.  Our correction must recognize our contribution to that reality.  Simple decriminalization or legalization cannot and will not eliminate the criminal sub-culture that fed the consumer demand.  Only regulation can do that.  The panelists touched on Nevada and the success of the state’s legal and regulated prostitution profession.  Unfortunately, they did not examine or extend that discussion, since the discussion stopped at, should paying for sex be a crime.  The key to Nevada’s success has been removing moral judgment from the process and serious, strict regulation for the protection of sex workers and of consumers.  The state’s regulation ensures, to the greatest extent possible, that sex workers freely choose to perform and consumers respect the service provider.

            So, that said, my simple answer to the original question would be no – paying for sex should NOT be a crime.  However, our response to legalization should be regulation.  The alcohol industry legalization after prohibition was not perfect, but it was orders of magnitude better than simple legalization because an array of regulations were created and enforced that made it very difficult for the criminal sub-culture to continue their nefarious activities.

            Lastly, I will be so bold to suggest that prostitution should be looked upon as a noble profession.  We need to abandon the social conservative attitudes of Anthony Comstock and Victorian mores regarding all things sexual.  Sex is an important part of life.  Sexual intercourse is our natural method of procreation.  The pleasures of the flesh bloom far beyond procreation or even sexual intercourse.  As with so many of these morality issues and questions, we must get government out of our private choices and strike the correct balance with regulation to protect consumers and service providers as we do with so many other professions – doctors, lawyers, nurses, teachers, plumbers, electricians, aircraft mechanics, pilots, et al.  Prostitution is a profession that has been with us for millennia regardless of contemporary laws.  Let us refocus our energy on the proper regulation of an important profession.

            “That’s just my opinion, but I could be wrong.”

            Comments and contributions from Update no.778:

Comment to the Blog:

“It's been an interesting week. I too have noticed the level of passion of Trump's supporters, but it is exceeded by their level of misinformation and the utter failures of their logic. These are the same people who ‘knew’ that President Obama would confiscate their firearms. As with the rest of their paranoid fantasies/nightmares, it's all in their heads. I would, however, like to know who is making money on these people.

“Following the news has become an exercise in the surreal. President-elect Trump has been ‘walking back’ on so many of his campaign promises so quickly that someone has suggested he can do the moon walk dance as well as Michael Jackson.

“On an even stranger note, Trump stated in a 60 Minutes interview that he does not support the Electoral College, the source of his victory. Could those suggesting the whole race was a conspiracy to elect Hillary Clinton be right after all? Given Trump's track record in the business world, it would not surprise me to see him fail even at that. Perhaps Mr. Trump has realized the depth of his inability to do the job for which he was elected. I take nothing for granted.”

My response to the Blog:

            As the old Chinese curse goes, may you live in interesting times.  These are interesting times.  One of Goebbels’ principles of propaganda: tell a lie enough times and most people will believe it.

            That “walking back” has occurred for every president.  I wonder if his supporters and those who voted for him will accept or tolerate that “walking back” process?

            We were on the road, so I have not seen the 60 Minutes interview; but, I have recorded it on DVR.  I will watch it over the next few days.

P.S.: Since my response above, I watched the 60 Minutes interview with soon-to-be president-elect Trump.  He was certainly more subdued than we are accustomed to hearing him (well, except for his pseudo-contrition after exposure of the Access Hollywood video clip). 

Another contribution:

“Thanks as always for your weekly Update, Cap.”

 . . . from a third party [printed ‘as-is’]:

“oh my goodness, ddd.

“what a wonderful missive: educational, heartwarming, observant and poignant. please thank the Good Captain from this Proud American lady.

“i met a couple from the Flanders area on a visit to the far east right after 11 September, 2001. i knew where they were from because somewhere along in my life i learned to recognize languages not taught and rarely spoken here in America. Catholic School opened our ears, eyes, and minds.

“i heard them speaking as they were shopping in the same store where i was. Flemish was obviously their native tongue. when i approached them with my sparse command of the French language and asked if they would say 'Happy Thanksgiving' to my Mother as i filmed a video to show her when i returned home, and they cheerfully obliged. as i watched and listened, they seemed to be saying much more, so when i stopped taping (yes, old VCR tape!) i inquired,,, they explained that they also expressed their sadness for what happened on that tragic tuesday to our twin towers, our pentagon, and at stony creek township. they told me (in English) that they had prayed for me and my mother, And that God would Bless America,,,

“it brought mom to tears. me too then and even right now as i type 15 years later,,,.

“so many GOOD PEOPLE in the world, in Every language.”

 . . . to which the contributor commented:

“This is being shared with Captain Cap Parlier.

“Thanks for your insights and sharing.

“May God bless you and all.”

My reply:

            As always, thank you for sharing all comments / contributions.

            Just an FYI note: I left active duty as a major and retired from the Reserves as a lieutenant colonel.  I was a Captain of Marines at one point in the military portion of my professional career.  I have also been an aircraft commander in both military and civilian aircraft.  I have never served in the scheduled airlines.  My nickname (preferred) is actually my initials – C.A.P., which I have simplified to Cap.  It is easy to confuse my nickname with a past title.  I am certainly not offended.  I just don’t want anyone to erroneous assume I have experience in scheduled, ‘big iron’ aircraft – I don’t and I’m too old now.

            Just thought you should know.

A different contribution:

“Thanks for the update-a very calm production it is too-your trip ‘down south’ did you no harm my friend. You’ll be singing Suwannee River next! Have a good one.

“Indeed Cap.  Remembrance was taken with all the dignity we could muster. I was, as you were, especially impressed with the wonderful behaviour of the youngsters who during the silence, apart from their grim little faces you would not have known they were there.  In fact I must write today to the head expressing our gratitude.”

My response:

            I’m so glad your Remembrance Day went well.

            May God bless the immortal souls of all those who gave their last full measure of devotion for freedom.

One last contribution [also printed ‘as-is’]:

“Hopefully when Dec is over and the election is official we will all respect the President just as everyone tried to respect the arrogant self indulged B. OBAMA.

“I and many of Trump supporters are not gloating.. we are still very fearful of the like of George Soros and all his master plans to go against the President Elect ...as a matter of fact I and multitudes of others will donate what we can to organizations that will keep this tyrannical ass at bay .. but as you mention gloating I can clearly remember the jovial celebrating of the left when Obama won two elections .. 

“Yes, be amazed when Trump truly makes this country respected again .. and love and peace be upon us all .. I do believe there is a God who loves us ..”

My reply:

            I am not aware of you gloating.  My comment was pointed at those who were gloating, and there are some Trump supporters who have been gloating.

            I truly hope you are correct.  I want to be amazed.  We need him to rise to be properly presidential.  He was duly and properly elected by the rules.  He will soon become the president of all Americans, me included.

            Yes, God loves us all, even those who are not worthy of His love.

            I am glad this silly season and election is over.  The process of the peaceful transition of power has begun.  I shall do my best to support him, as I will also be critical, as appropriate.

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

Cheers,

Cap                        :-)