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:
“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 :-)
