Update from the
Heartland
No.634
3.2.14 – 9.2.14
To all,
The big
news (for me) this week was the publication of the first two books in my To So
Few series of historical novels (see Update
633A). It has taken more than
a decade to get the words published, but better late than never. I must recognize and thank Saint
Gaudens Press for their support and extra efforts to publish Book I (To So
Few – In the Beginning) and Book II (To So Few – The Prelude). The publisher wants the next book to be
“The Clarity of Hindsight – The Words and Deeds of World War II” – a
non-fiction, history book. After I
get Hindsight in the can, I will refresh Book III (provisionally titled:
Explosion) for publication later this year and Book IV (provisionally titled:
The Trial) for publication next year.
I am also deep into expansion of my research work for Book V and
subsequent volumes. If anyone
chooses to read my newest books, I truly hope you enjoy them enough to
recommend them to your family, friends, colleagues, acquaintances and social
network “friends.” If you do not
like them and/or wish to offer constructive criticism, then by all means, tell
me; I can always learn and improve.
Thank you for your patience, understanding and support. FYI: the book cover images to the left
are now active links to Amazon.com; all of my books are available on all
eReaders – your choice. I use an
Apple iPad iBook reader that has become my primary reading instrument, as the
ease of note taking is so efficient and precise – research made quite a bit friendlier. If you have not made the jump to
eReaders, I highly recommend the step; eReaders truly add to the reading
experience.
Congress passed the Federal Agriculture
Reform and Risk Management Act of 2013 (AKA Farm Bill) [PL 113-xxx; H.R.2642; Senate: 68-32-0-0(0); House:
251-166-0-14(4); 127 Stat. xxxx]. The massive, five-year, spending bill
ends a three-year legislative slog to overcome both partisan and regional
disputes, and to overhaul agriculture policy and food-stamp funding. The bill has been presented to the
President; he is expected to sign it; as of this Update, the presidential consent
has not been publicly recorded. There
are a number of “terminates,” “prohibits,” and “reductions.” However, there are an ample number of
“establishes,” “creates,” “restores,” and “reauthorizes.” Nonetheless, I smell pork, but I have
not been able to clearly identify pork barrel spending; it is disguised well.
Attorney General Eric Holder announced
his intension to issue a department policy memorandum that will extend the same
protections historically afforded to heterosexual married couples, to same-sex
couples who are legally married.
The action will cover all federal legal matters, including bankruptcy
proceedings, prisoner visitation and death benefits for slain police officers. He made the announcement in a speech to
the Human Rights Campaign, a major gay-rights advocacy group, in New York City. While I certainly support the result,
as I say it is about time, I am not convinced this is the correct way to affect
these equal rights changes in this Grand Republic.
News from the economic front:
-- The Labor Department reported U.S. payrolls increased by
a seasonally adjusted 113,000 in January. U.S. employment improved slightly as the December gains were revised
up by 1,000 to 75,000, but was well below last year's average pace. The
November increase was also revised upward by 33,000 to 274,000. This is the second straight month of
less than forecast jobs performance, which could heighten concerns about the
economic recovery and could lead to calls for the Federal Reserve to soften its
monetary policy. The unemployment rate
continued to creep down from 6.7% in December to 6.6% in January.
-- On 17.October.2013, President Obama signed into law the Continuing
Appropriations Act, 2014 [PL 113-046; 127 Stat. 558] [618]. The law’s Division B, §1002(c)(1) [127
Stat. 567] suspended the Default Prevention
Act of 2013 [S.1569, still not passed by Congress] and extended the debt limit
to 7.February.2014. Treasury
Secretary Jack Lew said the government could stretch the country's borrowing
authority, but those measures may not last past 27.February, as he urged
Congress to extend the debt ceiling as soon as possible
-- The Chair of the European Central Bank’s Supervisory
Board of the Single Supervisory Mechanism Danièle Nouy has suggested that some
of the eurozone’s banks have no future and should be allowed to fail. It is not clear whether Nouy includes
the massive, international, “too big to fail” banks in her warning. We can only hope she does and is prepared
to carry out that conclusion.
Comments
and contributions from Update no.633:
“Well said Cap.
“In an opinion piece this long, it's very unusual for me not
to find something to disagree with - even if just on the margins. Not so here. Very well done.
There is no chance I'd make time to read the entire PRG- ICT report
although every voter should. Very
much appreciate the overview. In
fact the entire UPDATE was evenhanded, articulate, easy to follow and (IMHO)
right - on all counts.”
My reply:
I
read these things to understand what the USG is doing, as a concerned citizen
of this Grand Republic. Yet, and
perhaps to me more importantly, I learn a little bit more about these United
States and history.
Thx for your contributions.
Cheers,
Cap
Comment to the Blog:
“I expect the prosecutors in the Boston Marathon bombing
case to do their jobs well and the jury to make their best decision based on
facts and law as presented to them. Assuming guilt is not a trait of the US
legal system.
“Your discussion of the PRG-ICT report assumes that the
Review Group did not know what they were doing. The description of the spy
community's job as nearly impossible strikes me as reasonable and as an
explanation for not seeking perfection. The rest of what you described proceeds
from that.
“Once they relinquished that ideal of flawless operations,
they proceeded to deal with reality. First of all, in an operation of this
magnitude dealing with breakdowns of the data by group ought to be avoided
where possible. Such separations complicate every data operation by creating
walls that must be crossed to match data. Therefore, separation of US versus
other citizens is best avoided. In actual functioning, that grants everyone
equal rights.
“Secondly, if the perfectionist ideal cannot be met for the
highest priority, the time comes to recognize other important factors,
especially civil rights. I say again, we cannot separate one stated intention
from another without transparency. Think back a moment to Richard Nixon's
frequent and abusive use of the ‘national security’ claim. Nobody can be
allowed free rein in these huge data warehouses. Claiming to support freedom
for non-heterosexuals, recreational drug users, and sex workers conflicts with
supporting ready unsupervised access to their communication data.
“Finally, if that figure of five million people with access
to classified data comes near the real number, secrecy cannot be maintained.
While privatized background checks add a conflict of interest to the situation
(profit comes ahead of diligence), nobody of whatever background or motivation
could reasonably be expected to catch everyone with either the intent or the
potential to leak or sell information. That will not happen.
“We must conceive, formulate, and implement some other
approach to national security. Secrecy is no longer possible.
“I did not listen to President Obama's State of the Union
message this year. What he says varies from what he does.
“Your discussion of poverty shows lack of experience and/or
education. Comparing people in the US to members of indigenous tribes in some
unspecified other place is a screamingly obvious apples-to-oranges fallacy
unworthy of further comment.
“I have no idea where you get the idea that a minimum-wage
ditch digger would be able to “own his own home, have a TV, an iPhone, and an
automobile” on $10.10 per hour. No chance. I made $17.52 an hour in 2007 and had
no possibility of living like that in those easier times. Most of all, buying a
mortgage was still well beyond my means. Any car less than five years old
remained beyond my budget as well, and I have no expensive habits like smoking,
drinking, or drugs. By the time my income fell to $9.00 an hour in 2012, I
found myself unable to maintain any automobile even though I owed nothing on it
and lived in a rough neighborhood in an apartment with serious problems. Also,
claiming that a minimum-wage worker has “no job responsibilities” is false.
People would not hire people to do nothing. In my experience, I have worked
considerably harder for minimum wage than for higher pay.”
My response to the
Blog:
Re:
Tsarnaev. My opinion is just that
. . . my opinion. I am not a
court, a judge or even a lawyer. I
shall not administer justice in the Tsarnaev case. The court and a jury will determine his guilt and
punishment, and I am fine with that.
Re:
PRG-ICT. I did not intend to
suggest or even imply the PRG-ICT “did not know what they were doing.” I am suggesting they could have and
should have offered us a more thorough perspective. The PRG-ICT was composed of three law professors, a
counter-terrorism bureaucrat, and a retired CIA deputy director. In writing any document, the author(s)
decide the tone of their document.
While I generally and broadly laud the PRG-ICT effort, I felt compelled
to note the missing pieces. The
PRG-ICT report was a professional effort, although a little too politically
biased for my liking; I like balance.
Re:
separation of citizens. My point
was the U.S. Constitution applies to U.S. citizens and those non-U.S. citizens
within the jurisdiction of the Constitution. Our law cannot be extended beyond our borders, except as it
applies to U.S. citizens. As I
said, idealism is nice and sweet as a philosophical discussion point. An enemy battlefield combatant does not
have the same rights as a domestic citizen murderer.
Re:
perfectionist ideal. Good
point. “Free rein,” “unlimited,”
“uncontrolled,” “unregulated” . . . are always negative states in a free
society.
Re:
secrecy. All five million,
security clearances do NOT have equal access. The whole point for levels of clearance and Sensitive
Compartmented Information (SCI) is precisely to restrict access to only those
with a bona fide need-to-know.
Secrecy is critical to useful intelligence.
Re:
poverty. We have tried to discuss
the question of poverty many times.
A little too literal with your criticism of my comparison. The point is, the equation is quite
simple . . . live within our means.
A minimum wage person cannot afford those things, yet so many people
believe they are necessary implements of modern life. Gosh darn it, I believe you are excessively extending my
words. I never said a minimum wage
worker has no responsibilities; I said the inverse, if a worker has a low skill
job with no responsibilities, such as a ditch digger, I think US$7.25 is overly
generous. I’m sure the ditch
digger works very hard for his pay.
You did not answer my question: where do we draw the line?
. . . Round Two:
“My point about handling citizens of other countries in the
same way as US citizens within the data operations was about efficiency and
effectiveness, not about the Constitution. The lawyers can handle the legal
issues after the prevention or investigation of terrorist acts. I'll mention
again that “enemy combatants” refers to enemies who have not been defined and
in any case the NSA spying is not a military issue in any direct sense.
“Say what you like, many people have sanctioned access to
secret information. If only 1% of that five million people can handle ‘really’
sensitive information, that's still 50,000 humans, a tough number to screen in
a comprehensive way. Screening remains imperfect, too. Probably someone would
slip through, even in a very intensive screening environment.
“I have not extended your words in the least. In fact, in
your reply you repeated the phrase ‘low skill worker with no responsibilities’
just as if you believe those people do not work. I still object and I object to
your characterization of $7.25 per hour as ‘overly generous.’ It seems you have
no idea of the cost of minimal living. Even in the rural low-rent place where I
now find myself and even if we rashly assume full-time work, that is not enough
for rent, food, necessary utilities including only water, sewer, heat, light
and Internet, and work transportation particularly given the odd hours involved
in many minimum-wage jobs. If you believe a person should not make a living
from honest less-skilled work, who do you propose to do this work and how
exactly should the less skilled make a living? Let us remember that some of
these are people who cannot do college-level work. In any case, high-level jobs
may go unfilled but not nearly enough of them exist to replace minimum-wage
jobs. If society wants those jobs done, some way must exist for that to happen.”
. . . my response to Round Two:
Re:
non-U.S. citizens. As I said, it
is a noble extension of constitutional rights . . . much like the Islamic
practice of treating guests with respect and courtesy. The PRG-ICT proposed to make such
treatment the common law standard, which Congress can do under the
Constitution. I am not convinced
that proposal is a wise choice.
Re:
“enemy combatant.” We can always
argue the definition, as Congress or the law has not yet offered a contemporary
definition.
Re:
NSA. It is a military issue in
that the consequences of any changes or reforms could have profound impact on
military operations. The NSA has
always been under DoD and sprang from the U.S. Army Signals Intelligence units;
the DoD is a major customer.
Re:
security screening. Good
points. Yet, the objective must
remain zero leaks.
Re:
work. I appreciate your
sensitivity on this issue. My
opinion remains the same. I never
said or even implied that a “low skill work with no responsibilities” did not
work. The ditch digger works very
hard. I acknowledge and laud his
labor. He deserves to be paid a
reasonable wage for his labor; yet, that job requires very little skill or
training (just a strong back & arms) and he has no responsibilities – he
just digs where he is told to dig.
You continue to avoid my root query; where do we draw the line? What is a reasonable wage for a
hard-working, low skilled worker?
What makes US$7.25 the correct number, or $10.10, or $20, or $1000 per
hour? We cannot buy someone out of
poverty. Yes, you are correct; I
have never struggled in poverty, so I must bow to your experience. Yet, the question still remains. Perhaps the answer is a labor
collective where necessary resources can be shared to minimize the fraction of
income. The only way out of
poverty seems to me to be education (training; develop an in-demand
skill). Further, as we have seen
with far too many low-income housing projects, far too many residents feel no
responsibility to take care of their allotted space or collectively the area in
which they live. There comes a
point where we must say, if you want to live in squalor, then you have a right
to do so.
Postscript:
. . . I sent along
this related opinion article:
Myth-making about economic inequality
“Myth-making about economic inequality”
by Robert J. Samuelson,
Washington Post
Published: February 2 [2014]
. . . Round Three:
“We have reached the level of pointless repetition on most
of this, so I will let those issues rest for this week.
“You heap empty praise on working people, then continue to
claim he or she has no responsibility. I have dug literal ditches for an
irrigation contractor. Do you think I was held responsible for the quality and
quantity of that work? I was. You may need to define ‘responsibility’ in a way
that others share to make sense of your statement. After that, you go on to
combine the slippery slope fallacy with reductio
ad absurdum to make a doubly wrong argument. That goes nowhere in finding a
reasonable place to ‘draw the line,’ which you claim to want. Perhaps we could
add up the costs of an apartment (at least one bedroom), heat, light, phone,
food, and other resources that may be defined as necessary by reasonably
objective experts. This issue has already been studied extensively, and the
conclusion they find in common is that $7.25 an hour will not make even a
single person self-supporting in any metropolitan area in the US. The amount
needed varies considerably by metropolitan area but is at least $20,000 per
year in most places. That amount comes pretty close to the yield of $10.10 x
2080 hours (standard year at 40 hours), which is $21,008. Remember, these
studies do not suppose that one needs to own a house or a new car. They are
about survival-level living.
“Education has always in the past been a method of getting
out of poverty. While providing funds for education would helps people to some
degree, it's not likely to happen and there's another issue. If we educated,
let us say, 50% of minimum-wage workers for jobs that would actually exist at
graduation, we would have many more workers than jobs in those sectors. Modern
technology has reduced the absolute number of jobs available, and education
will not change that. We would still have people working for minimum wage, but
in the US they would have tens of thousands of dollars each in debt, as I
myself do. Raising the minimum wage will at least let some working people get
off of public assistance. (Many of the people on assistance have jobs but do
not make a living from their wages. Walmart is notorious for this but it occurs
in many jobs.)”
. . . my response to Round Three:
Re:
work. All work has value. Not all work is valued the same. To do so is the essence of communism,
i.e., all work is equal, therefore all people are compensated equally. The notion is an idealistic, eutopian
concept. What is missing is
ambition, drive, reward, et cetera.
Those folks who determine compensation must at the root of the process determine
the value of the work/services rendered.
Although their compensation is different, the ditch digger and
billionaire should be treated with the same respect. The issue of compensation is one of work value, not cost of
living. The choice of employment
belongs to the employee; he decides if his work is reasonably compensated; if
not, he finds other employment that values his skills. The equation is not the other way
around.
Re:
education. We agree. Education is the key. There are a variety of ways of
obtaining an education or valuable skills. Paying for the education is one way. Apprenticeship is another way. Raising the minimum wage is another
way.
You
have offered reasons why we should pay more for minimum skill work. We can throw money is any direction we
wish. However, you still have not
answered the question: what is a reasonable wage for the lowest skill/responsibility
level job? Employment is about
work, not about cost of living or social welfare.
This
may seem harsh, but it is life.
. . . Round Four:
“Your statement that, ‘The choice of employment belongs to
the employee’ is patently false. It assumes equality of opportunity, ability,
and understanding of the situation. None of those is true or close to true,
particularly in the USA. On that statement rests your entire position.
“If education and health care were freely available we would
come closer to equality of opportunity. They are not provided freely and
opportunities are not equal.
“Mental, emotional, and physical ability vary greatly. Even
if enough positions were available, not everyone has the ability to be highly
skilled, strongly specialized for in-demand work or gifted in such fields as
management.
“Also, that still does not account for an individual's youthful
environment. He or she does not control that environment until adulthood, and
by that time a person's assumptions and understandings about reality are
essentially hard-wired. In much the same way Ayn Rand claimed that people
seeking assistance from Social Security were weak of character until she
herself needed help, other people's underlying assumptions about life change
only with great difficulty and ordinarily under great stress. A great many
people have assumptions left over from younger days that prevent them from
freely choosing to be whatever would make them more money. Those assumptions
cannot be changed easily or reliably.
“The whole addiction issue arises here, too. An enormous
number of active addicts (including alcoholics) live in any given general
population. Addicts do not have free choice in anything. (That one's been
studied. I can provide any number of references for it.)
“The common American assumption that any child can (not may,
but can) grow up to be President (or whatever position) is basically nonsense.”
. . . my response to Round Four:
Re:
employment. It is more a matter of
perspective than patent falsehood.
Employment is not a right.
It is a mutual agreement between employer and employee – quid pro quo; in the exempt salaried
domain, it is generally a “serve at the pleasure of” arrangement, and that
relationship works both ways.
Re:
education & health care. Yes,
certainly. They are freely
available, but someone has to pay; so, if it is free, who pays the providers? I could advocate for free education
& health care; there are many logical reasons for the capability. After all, I have advocated for and
continue to argue for paying for drugs to eliminate the collateral damage of
substance abuse. However, as with
most things, where do we draw the line?
Why not free food, free housing, free transportation, oh heck free
life. If everything is free, why
work? Heck, even in pure
communism, workers are required to work for the State. So, where do we draw the line?
BTW,
just an FYI, in Book III of my Anod novel series (not yet written), she arrives
on Earth for the first time to learn how native humans have evolved. The term I use today is “the Lottery
Syndrome,” which the theory contends that 95% of folks would choose not to
work, if they won the lottery.
Anyway, the conversation reminds me of that book concept.
Re:
skill. You are of course spot on
correct. Not everyone has the
aptitude for every job. I have
seen it in graphic demonstration in the flying biz. The basic rule in my initial flight training was, if you
vomit on a flight, you are given a medical review; if you vomit twice, you are
removed from the pilot training program – no questions, no appeal. Skills have value. Different skills have different values.
Re:
childhood environment. Again, you
are spot on! We have discussed
aspects of this reality many times, and we cannot discuss it enough . . . far
too important, foundational, and formative. Yet, even the deficiencies of our childhood environment can
be overcome. Where there is a
will, there is a way. As you say,
changing that childhood teaching is not easy . . . but it is possible.
Re:
addiction. Good points. I am not convinced of the no-choice
aspect. Yet, you are correct, once
in the grip, there are only two choices left: 1.) accept the grip, and 2.)
change once you have had enough.
Addicts have, can and will overcome the grip, once they decide they must
change. Nothing else can help
them; only they can decide.
Re:
American assumption. A bit cynical
for my liking . . . but there is truth in your opinion. Luck, happenstance and a helping hand
do add to the outcome.
Another contribution:
“Just came out in the Post a few minutes ago….bad news.”
“Navy probing alleged cheating on nuke reactor work”
The article cited:
“Navy investigates 30 suspected of sharing answers on exams”
by Craig Whitlock
Washington Post
Published: February 4 [2014]
My reply:
Always
sad to see cases like these.
Perhaps we’ve been too complacent in recent years . . . distracted by
other more threatening endeavors.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
