Update no.505

Update from the Heartland

No.505

15.8.11 – 21.8.11

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

To all,
This is a very short Update. Between our return from Austin and my motorcycle safety course for the last four days, I barely kept up with my daily reading, neglected eMail, and had to push topics into next week. If anyone else ever considers getting a motorcycle, I strongly encourage and recommend the Motorcycle Safety Foundation’s Rider’s Edge safety course . . . well worth the money, time and effort. I feel like I’ve been rode hard and put away wet, but I am street legal, now.

A long-time friend and contributor sent this link to an incredible video of a machine that actually flies like a bird. This is a must see for anyone who enjoys flight.
http://www.flixxy.com/airplane-flies-like-a-bird.htm

Comments and contributions from Update no.504:
Comment to the Blog:
“I seriously disagree with your correspondent in Mississippi. The level of poverty that we now experience in the USA is neither a Constitutional issue nor a moral one. Poverty is an economic issue. The nation as a whole, as embodied by government, must consider the ramifications of allowing more and more people to sink into poverty. My advice is to consider other nations with high rates of poverty and small numbers of extremely wealthy people, such as Haiti. Most of them are neocolonial countries, subject to the economic whims of outsiders. That is the real issue about poverty. To provide one simple example, about 14,000 people currently die here in Ohio annually from lack of health care. Even if that does not bother you, who pays to bury them? What happens when that number rises?
Of course, I disagree with your correspondent about the class warfare issue as well. Conservatives have indeed supported the wealthy in opposition to the poor. In many cases, such as Warren Buffett, the wealthy themselves object to this. Most of the conservatives are middle class or poor people consistently voting against their own interests.
“I have no idea why Harry Reid would appoint John Kerry to the ‘Super Congress.’ He’s a weak spot if there ever was one.”
My reply to the Blog:
Re: poverty. Like most topics, we must first agree upon the definition. The commonly understood definition of poverty is something like, “the state or condition of having little or no money, goods, or means of support; condition of being poor,” which is common among “Western” nations. Americans tend to use money (income) as the measure of poverty, because that is the medium of our subsistence. However, I respectfully submit that such a metric is not only unreasonable; it is also unrealistic and seriously biases our view of poverty. I use the conjunction ‘AND’ in my conditions: “helping those who wish to be helped AND seek to better their circumstances.” If both conditions are not met, then I see no reason to expend public monies on those individuals. I acknowledge the individual citizen’s fundamental right to choose for either condition, and I shall respect their choices. Also, as I previously stated, I believe public monies should have strings attached – conditions that must be met and maintained; otherwise, no deal – sorry. Using income (or money) as the metric has gotten us so bloody crosswise with indigenous peoples around the world; it is wrong. So it is here. If a person chooses to kill themselves by overdosing on psychotropic substance(s) or chooses to live without the encumbrance of property or possessions, I say let them be, just as we should respect the decision of an individual to accept life-saving medical intervention. We must stop trying to induce people to live as we want them to live; it is not necessarily better. That said, I do accept your point; far too many people satisfy my constraints but still slip through the cracks.
Re: conservatives. I understand your argument. I am not sure I can agree. I know the public image of conservatives and even the Republican Party, but there are more than a few compassionate conservatives.
Re: Super-Committee. From my perspective, the selections by all four congressional leaders serve one purpose – perpetuation of the loggerhead. Neither party can tolerate “giving in,” so we select the faithful partisans, who will presumably not stray far from the party line. I do not see one of the selectees as helpful to finding a mutually acceptable solution to a very real problem. Further, I see the default position as a blunderbuss or perhaps even a scorched-earth solution. I want to be proven wrong.

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