Update no.833

Update from the Sunland

No.833

11.12.17 – 17.12.17

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

            To all,

            The follow-up news items:

-- The joint conference committee has filed its report, which indicates they have reconciled the two versions of HR.1 [829, 831].  The House and Senate are expected to vote on the revised, reconciled bill in the next few days.  The tax cut will likely help my IRA account bottom-line, but I doubt this bill will have any positive effect on our effective tax rate—what is given in rate is taken away in excluded deductions.  I am far more concerned adding more to the deficit without reductions in spending—US$1.5T over 10 years.  We are betting on the come.  Heck, at least we can be happy for the wealthy; this is a really good deal for them.  Unfortunately, we are not among that lot, but hey, The Donald and his brood are, so good on you, Donald.

-- President Trump dangled the potential for a preemptive presidential pardon for ‘Mike’ Flynn in a blatant attempt to silence Flynn in the on-going Russian meddling investigation [782, 792, 828].  The Donald is thumbing his nose at all of us, and taunting his obstruction-of-justice accusers.  Then, he denigrates the Federal Bureau of Investigation to diminish their standing in support of the on-going special counsel investigation.  The more resistance Trump and his lackeys throw up the guiltier he appears (and respectfully . . . he likely is).

            I commonly choose to refrain from comment on political doings in other states—just too much detail for my little pea-brain to deal with responsibly.  However, the special election in Alabama lands as an exception for a bevy of reasons.  Men like Roy Moore have repulsed me for a very long time.  If I was to select the archetypical model of a moral projectionist, it would be Roy Moore; I can think of no politician more audacious and unadulterated in expressing his intentions to impose his perception of radical Christian morality on every single citizen.  I have been offended by Moore’s conduct and public pronouncements well before his female accusers made their allegations public.  Now, we can add his sexual misconduct to the long list of disgusting behavior.  Unfortunately, the statute of limitations has long passed for Moore.  That said, there is little doubt in my mind that he did those things he is accused of, and given the conduct of similar abusers, he has quite likely abused others and done worse.

            The election defeat of Moore at the hands of Doug Jones yielded another very public defeat for the narcissist-in-chief, which cannot sit well with him; and, for his former henchman-in-chief Steve Bannon.

            I offer a couple of additional thoughts for proper debate with respect to the myriad accusations of sexual abuse, misbehavior and inappropriate conduct.

            Part of the disquiet I feel with the continuing revelations and accusations rest primarily upon the paucity of any remedy in a court of law.  Further, the specter of moral projection amplifies my concerns.

            First, any physical touching of another person without consent is wrong and should be treated as a felonious crime.  Penetration without consent is rape and must be punished as a capital crime.  Yet, as I have tried to absorb the bevy of accusations, it seems to be that most of the transgressions do not involve touching in any form, but rather pressure, innuendo, suggestion, intimidation, and such.  Further, these verbal (non-physical) exchanges are predominately personal (i.e., no witnesses or corroboration), or private (beyond public scrutiny).

            Second, the degree of offense is solely in the thoughts and perception of the accuser.  This brings us to perception.  One person’s metric of acceptability, tolerance or appropriateness hangs entirely upon that person’s attitude regarding sex, sexual conduct and circumstances.  The exact same words may have monumentally different meaning and impact from one person to another.

            Third, the incidental circumstances are critical to the perception.  Physical location is important to the perception: private, workplace, public, et cetera.  More important: the collateral relationship between the two individuals, e.g., position of power or influence, inequality, dependency and such, have substantial effect on how an individual perceives any particular set of words.

            A proposition for sexual conduct between individuals can be perceived in dramatically different terms depending upon the individuals and circumstances involved in the specific incident.  The exact same words might be welcomed by one person and deemed as gravely offensive by another individual.  The latter might well be seriously offended by even the hint of sexual innuendo.  Just because a person is crude, insensitive, uncaring, or ignorant does not warrant societal condemnation.

            This potential gross disparity between intention and perception appears to be pushing us into the domain of or under the influence of the moral projectionist and the dicta of the lowest common denominator.  Will the near future bring an environment where we are afraid to discuss sex, sexuality, sexual orientation, sex education, or anything even remotely related to sex?  Surely, we are not returning to the highly restrictive Victorian sexual morality.  We have so much farther to go in our societal maturity regarding sexual morality that we cannot afford regression.  We are destroying lives with even the hint of sexual misconduct.  I am seriously concerned about our looming over-reaction beyond the retribution of long-past transgressions.

            The Federal Communications Commission voted 3-2 on Thursday, to roll back far-reaching rules governing how internet-service providers treat traffic on their networks.  The Obama administration’s 2015 “net neutrality” rules required broadband providers to treat all traffic equally, without blocking or slowing content, or providing fast lanes for favored sites and services.  The FCC’s action is expected to empower cable and wireless providers and transform consumers' online experience.  The three Trump nominees cast the in-favor votes.  For the record, I think this action is extraordinarily cynical and biased by the commercial profit-motive.  The potential for abuse and favoritism increased exponentially, in my humble opinion.  Internet access should have been treated like other infrastructure elements, e.g., roads, rivers, rails, air, telephone, satellite access, et cetera ad infinitum—equal access for all citizens without bias by money or any other means of influence.  With the FCC action, we are no longer equal on the Internet, and once again, money dominates.

            NASA’s Kepler space telescope provided the data . . . analysis by various groups determined the existence of an 8^th planet orbiting the Kepler-90 star system.  The Kepler-90 star is 2,545 light-years from Earth, so not within reach of humans without warp-drive.  Several of the Kepler-90 planets are within the habitable band—not too hot, not too cold.  Unfortunately, the analysis suggests they are large mass, gas giants.  The solid, rock planets are too close to the star to possess a life-supportable environment.  There are several important points from this latest disclosure: 1.) the analytical technique utilized for this discovery will yield more planetary finds; 2.) evidence indicates there are many other planetary systems out there, and 3.) we really need a hyper-light speed drive system for inter-stellar exploration.

            Comments and contributions from Update no.832:

Comment to the Blog:

“Trump’s travel ban, regardless of its legal outcome, further convinces the Muslim world that the U.S. hates them.  It’s as if somebody wanted to keep the ‘war’ going.

“Senator Franken’s announcement that he will resign in the future struck me as unusual because he did not simply resign, either with that speech or in the future.  He stated that he will resign later, which is not final.  His comparison and response to others similarly accused was probably inevitable.  Had he not done so publicly, many others would have done it for him.

“I welcome the new awareness of sexual harassment and assault.  I agree that the aggressors are primarily male, although I, as a male, have experienced the target side of that from women.  The larger discussion might center on the dynamics of power rather than anything directly masculine or feminine.

“I share your concern about false or exaggerated accusations.  This is not only a phenomenon in politics and entertainment.  The reports permeate our society, or they will shortly.  Based on personal experience in many environments, sexual aggression pervades work places and many others.  That makes it more important, not less, to seek justice for both the victims and those falsely accused.  Even deciding what actions constitute harassment or assault will be difficult.  No part of the process will be easy, but if we are to make progress rather than do further harm, we must do our very best.

“In the discussion of ‘Make America Great Again,’ we need to specify what we mean by ‘great.’  You point out, accurately, that it differs for those who are ‘Caucasian, Protestant, male, literate, and quite likely a land/property owner’.  I will add specifically not in poverty and perceived as heterosexual to the list of adjectives.  Even for them, I submit the Eisenhower and Kennedy years were the greatest.  That period was guided by Eisenhower, a Republican with very different policies than the Tea Baggers and with a clear understanding of the horrors of both war and the military industrial complex.  For most of the rest of us, the 1970s were probably the best.  We enjoyed much more of the post-WWII progress than we had before, and we had not yet been attacked as we have been by both parties since.”

“PS: I'm predicting low turnout in the Alabama special election, for the same reason as in our last Presidential election.  People would rather not vote for either candidate.”

My response to the Blog:

            I’m not so sure about “keeping the ‘war’ going”; however, the blanket ban affects a lot of innocent, good people, i.e., guilty by association.  I suppose we could make the same association between Trump and the KKK.  I still believe Trump’s blanket ban is wrong in every possible way, i.e., a nuke to swat a fly.

            Franken’s quasi-resignation was indeed quite unusual.  I suspect the results in tomorrow’s Alabama special election may have some effect on Franken’s action.  He was the sacrifice at the altar of perceived righteousness.

            I only note the gender propensity as an observation—not a control factor.  Abuse of power and the sub-element of sexual misconduct is far more a consequence of the opiate of power rather than gender.  Power over others tends to amplify character flaws especially in those who feel entitled by their birth, wealth or position, or some other contributing factor.  I suspect we could track abuse of power back to childhood indoctrination; some children are raised to be abusers.

            You are, of course, quite correct in that dealing with abuse of power is difficult in that it often blossoms from the private domain, i.e., he said—she said.  Like virtually all of the morality issues plaguing modern culture, we must find the means to alter (mature) the mindset of all citizens to respect everyone regardless of the social factors.

            I will accept your additional qualifiers, although I might broaden the inclusive envelope by using the term “conform to the social conservative normalcy.”

            For argument’s sake, I might quibble with your 1970s as a candidate for the greatest era.  I look back on that time as a valley rather than a peak in “greatness”—the debacle of Vietnam, racial unrest, Equal Rights Amendment, Watergate, the larger betrayal by Nixon, the Arab oil embargo, Islamic Republic of Iran, et al.  I think Moore answered as he believes—the ante-bellum South.  I have no idea how Trump would answer other than he thinks it’s a catchy phrase.

            I truly hope you are wrong.  If it is low voter turnout, I believe Moore will win the election, and we shall all suffer the consequences.  Time shall tell the tale; we will likely know the outcome tomorrow night.

 . . . a follow-up comment:

“You have a good point about Moore (and some others) specifically citing the ante-bellum South as a ‘great’ time.  It makes me wonder if he knows anything at all about anyone's conditions then other than the ‘quality.’  Even most white people in the South lived poorly. Conditions were slightly better in the North, but not enough for me to envy most people.  I pray these delusional, hateful people fall completely out of power.”

 . . . my follow-up response:

            I am with you.  I see little to envy in that era.

            Many people like Moore and Trump apparently have very selective memory that ignores history.

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

Cheers,

Cap                 :-)