Update no.647

Update from the Heartland

No.647

5.5.14 – 11.5.14

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

To all,

As is so often the case these days, the Supremes sparked yet another public debate.  On Monday, the vaunted panel of high court justices rendered their thin 5-4 decision in the case of Town of Greece v. Galloway [570 U.S. ___ (2014); No. 12-696] – allowing an opening prayer for the monthly town council meeting in Greece, New York.  I have not read the ruling, as yet, so I shall reserve my opinion until after the read-through.  However, the editorial opinion published by the Washington Post poked me to tinkle the keys before me, perhaps prematurely but now nonetheless.

“Sanctioned prayer has no place at legislative meetings”

by Editorial Board

Washington Post

Published: May 10 [2014]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/sanctioned-prayer-has-no-place-at-legislative-meetings/2014/05/10/ed0f1532-d6f0-11e3-aae8-c2d44bd79778_story.html?wpisrc=nl_headlines

Various, 17^th and 18^th century, political philosophers articulated the need for secular government, separate from the monarchy or theocratic authority.  Thomas Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists (1802) stated the principle most succinctly.  The separation of church and state did not and does not mean expunging religion from public life.  The wall was never intended to exclude religion from the public domain and debate.  The key and only issue is balance.  The Founders had first hand, direct experience with theocratic rule, and they also understood the importance of religion in their lives and in a free society. We have negative examples even today.  The Founders understood the need for balance.  I suspect the Supremes are seeking that balance point to ensure inclusivity as well as some distance between theocratic domination and public policy.

A thread from another arena is transplanted to this humble forum may be useful in this forum.  I recognize and acknowledge the whole nasty business with Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling does not make fruitful public debate; however, there are elements that may prove useful.  The opening argument comes from a friend and contributor to this humble forum.

“Funny how hypocritical our president and all the alphabet news agencies really are. When Clippers owner Donald Sterling made the alleged ‘racist’ comments (though I still am not so sure they were racist), why THE HELL is our loser president and all the loser Al Sharptons and other coke head corrupt minions, not at all saying WHAT DONALD STERLING said in private, should have been kept private. Since when in our country do we leak audio recordings of private conversations, then use it ON-AIR to conduct the lynch mob witch hunt of trying him, and finding a verdict, and sentencing him--in the court of public opinion, when he was never given any due process (nor did he commit any crimes).

“This is all a good example of how sick our country really is.”

> 

> Darren

My response"

“Wait just a doggone minute here!  Sterling has a history with this crap and not a short history either.  I believe the mistress was pissed off, acted out of spite, and simply queued him up. He did not disappoint those who wanted his head on a pike.  This was not some drunken blathering.  He stepped in it full on.  The President, Sharpton or the alphabet news agencies simply called a spade a spade.  Has anyone asked where or when it was recorded, or how the recording got released to the public?”

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

. . . round two:

“This is what I blogged in a news media site:

“My opinion on Don Sterling/Clippers/NBA:  Even if he is racist, why does our alphabet news agencies over-cover what was a conversation in private, exposed to world (legally?). Then our so called POTUS has to weigh in on it from Asia even though the world has so much stress? Race baiting? Divide the people?  And now Oprah weighs in saying Sterling demonstrates the "plantation mentality" and now a "Sterling anti-racism rally" planned which LAPD must plan for. Thanks news media: you fuel the race problems!”

“Cap, most of us can be hypnotized by the news media reporting, style, format and focus.  I am not immune to it what so ever, if anything, I might be more captivated by the wrong events, for the wrong reasons.   The point I want to make is WHAT IF much of what they report on the network/cable news outlets, is not as much for the actual ‘NEWS’ value but an objective of the reaction it causes in the public?

“All because Don Sterling's private conversation was recorded then outed, now LAPD must plan on a possible tactical alert, increased staffing, embeddings C.I.'s and U.C.'s into the groups, and likely alert if not deploy their Mobile Field Force, all because of some drunk man's sloppy and racist speech to someone he thought was his girlfriend. 

“Here's a question, has anyone been probing the legality of whether that conversation was illegally obtained?  No, the news media and our president (if one can call him that), and Oprah, and Al Sharpton, and all the race baiters that keep popping their heads out on cue, are working as the clowns they are at our CNN circus, to divide and distract the people.

“I've always said I don't think deep down to our core, most of us are racist, it seems very silly that we would judge one another based on skin pigmentation, when all of us were created by God. 

“Stereotyping does causes judgment, and it is of course easy to stereotype others, but much of this has been created by how news media reports events.

“Are people tribal?  I tend to believe they are.  We have a natural tendency to feel comfortable around people who we MIGHT BELIEVE are similar to ourselves in values/behavior/etc.   Many tend to want association with those in their social-economic sphere.  Do you think my high-net-worth clients want to hang out in their free time with their chauffeur?  Hell no!  Some have already asked me before why if I had my own business before, or was director of marketing for 2 companies, why I would be a ‘driver?’  They judged me per my occupation.  I don't take it personally.  Would I want to hang out with some of my client/passengers off-duty?  Hell no!  I don't relate or value what they do.   But even on an occupational level, everyone judges others.  I'm not in their economic class, likely won't ever be, so I am not as good (in their eyes).  Would I feel comfortable hanging with Don Sterling in a quaint steakhouse in Brentwood or Toluca Lake?  Likely not, though if I was just as drunk as Sterling, it might be entertainment.   

“Here is the central point of my originating message: Would you or I like our conversations that were held in PRIVATE, made public?  Would we want some of our behavior in PRIVATE exposed to TMZ, then the president can weigh in on it?  I doubt it.  Would we want video of something we did aired for the world?  I doubt it.  All of us have probably said things that could get us fried in the court of public opinion, if the news media's crafting of the story was to fry us. 

“So if some rioting starts up soon over this, hopefully not, let's not blame Don Sterling, but blame the entities/agents that recorded the conversations and then systematically exposed it with the agenda to divide the people on RACE.

“What's another scary takeaway from this (besides private recordings released) is NPR saying this morning that the only way we could accept Sterling back into his position as a sports teams owner, is if we can prove he is not only apologizing on the surface, but his values and opinions have been changed down to the root.  I find this Orwellian that NPR is now going to dictate our collective values to us in the global village.   With the extensive data-collection (vacuuming); data-warehousing; and data-mining that NSA has been and is doing, why any of us could be the target of a private conversation being outed, then used against us in some fashion.

“BTW, I pretty much had this same opinion when Mel Gibson's recordings were released of conversations he had in private, while drunk, and being really stupid.”

 . . . my response to round two:

Darren,

            My apologies for this late response.  Perhaps, just an interesting FYI: I am working the final edit of the manuscript for me next book – The Clarity of Hindsight.  The focus has absorbed virtually all of my new capacity in retirement.  I need to get this sucker finished, so I can move on to Book III of the To So Few series novels.  That said, on to the topic at hand.

            I absolutely agree with your privacy premise.  None of us wants our private affairs broadcast across all media worldwide.  Likewise, I immediately asked the same questions.  Who recorded that conversation?  And, who leaked it to the Press?  My opinion of the two women involved is not particularly good.  “Vengeance is mine, sayeth the Lord.”  The mistress (assistant?) has not been serving her reputation well with her antics and interviews . . . all of which, IMHO, confirm her purpose in all those.

            I surely hope the IRS has opened an investigation into whether Ms. Stiviano has paid her proper taxes on all those “gifts” and “benefits” given to her by Sterling.  Gold-diggers must pay taxes too.

            I shall offer a few opinionated observations for public debate in this (or any other) humble forum.  The aspect of this sordid affair I find most intellectually stimulating is the human dimensions of the illuminated dynamics. 

First, her questioning of him has flashing lights and red flags of a purposeful, intentional set-up; she knew how he would react, and she queued him up quite well. 

Second, we tend to forget that the mantle we embrace curtails our freedoms including speech.  When I wear a uniform or display an employee badge, I am no longer John Q. Citizen; I am a representative of whatever that affiliation may be.  Despite his wealth and influence, Sterling forgot, or perhaps never learned, that he was an owner of just one franchise in a much larger organization, and his words, actions and conduct in public or private will be judged by the keepers of the brand he represents. 

Third, there is a lesson for all of us in this.  When our private and public words, actions and/or conduct differ, we immediately establish a dichotomy that can be, and often well be, interpreted as hypocrisy or contempt for society’s sense of “normal.” 

Fourth, this is yet another demonstration of the awesome power of The Box (= society’s definition of normal).  He chose to live his life in a manner well outside The Box.  Society does not take kindly to crabs trying to escape the heat of the boiling pot. 

Lastly, his money obviously bought a lot of power, influence and things, but at the end of the day, he is just another citizen and a flawed human being.  Humility might have served him well.

Comments and contributions from Update no.646:

Comment to the Blog:

“Let's see, how can I stir something up? I wonder what's behind the landslides and sinkholes lately. Could that be a more-or-less direct result of changing rainfall patterns as the climate changes? Is Latvia the next target for the Russians? Have you noticed people talking more often and less kindly about the Koch brothers? I have seen TV reports of various views on domestic commercial drones. What do you think?

“Have you heard the prediction that China's economy will grow to be larger than ours this year? In the long term that may be more important than those other items above. Also in reference to China, do you think they will do something to keep the peace in their region while their economy flourishes? Both Russia and North Korea are among China's neighbors.

“The Fed has decided to cut back on bond buying despite the continuing confusion among economic indicators. At this point, I guess one move has as much chance as another. Until someone important either comes to understand whatever is going on or decides to impart such knowledge to the rest of us, action is pointless. For my own viewpoint, the thirty years since Reagan began to get his owners' ideas implemented have convinced me that John Maynard Keynes came far closer to sound ideas than the distorted version of Adam Smith's notions that currently passes for economics. Are you (or is any non-economist?) aware that Adam Smith completely opposed the idea of limited liability? Limited liability is the foundational concept underlying corporations.”

My response to the Blog:

            I always appreciate a good stir.  Thank you for that.

            Landslides and sinkholes have been happening since forever.  They are microscopic events in the macroclimate dynamic, i.e., spot extremes, hazards, or other calamities will always occur regardless of the climate; thus, I do not think the recent catastrophes are due to climate change.

            Re: Latvia.  The Baltic States would be easy pickings compared to the Ukraine, except for one small detail – the European Union, and consequently NATO of which the United States is a part.  Latvia is farther along in the EU membership process than the Ukraine.  That said, Latvia and the Baltics are highly unlikely targets short of general warfare.

            Re: Koch Brothers.  Nope, not seen that as yet . . . still very much the villainous portrayal, it seems to me.

            Re: domestic drones.  The use of domestic drone aircraft of various sizes is inevitable, in my humble opinion – endurance, size, repetition, risk, cost, among other reasons.  The potential for chaos is real.  It does not take much imagination to see that potential without regulation, control and structure.  The FAA has several initiatives in play to get a handle on safe use of unmanned aircraft in U.S. airspace.

            Re: PRC.  Yes; in fact, by the latest estimates, the PRC economy may overtake the U.S. economy as the world’s largest earlier than expected, prior to 2020 by one estimate.  The consequences to the world economy are certainly less clear.

            Re: PRC regional aggression.  This is a tough one in my mind.  I do not know why the PRC is taking progressively more aggressive action against its territorial neighbors . . . could be a sense of remedy to enduring grievances, or simply the schoolyard bully syndrome.

            Re: Fed action.  That was precisely my point.  The economic signs are not all positive or consistent, which suggests to me that the nation’s recovery from the Great Recession is more mushy and unsteady.

            Re: limited liability.  Yes, I think most folks can see the consequences of limited liability for corporations.  Perhaps less can see the benefit.  As with most things, the key is balance.  Given the uncharted ramifications of Citizens United, the pendulum appears to have swung too far toward the benefit of corporations.  Adam Smith’s premise was cause and effect, i.e., consequences for decisions taken.  The market cannot be a reliable broker in the arbitration of wrongdoing or the public good in contemporary society, as modern technology enables dramatic market manipulation by forces with the means to do so, i.e., the wealthy bending the market to their will . . . kinda like royalty of a bygone era.

 . . . follow-up comments:

“Landslides and sinkholes are indeed old phenomena, but I suspect they are becoming more common. If that is so, the landslides might be due to saturated or at least moistened soils becoming more susceptible to gravity. The sinkholes are more likely to be the result of depleted aquifers caused by unsustainable population growth and thirsty agriculture and by reckless development of wetlands.

“I have been aware of the Koch Brothers for several years, but only recently I have seen mentions of them on TV news and by President Obama that led me to think they are becoming more known to the public. As a progressive and a defender of the American concept of equality, I do not favor a situation where people who make a great deal of money in the petroleum industry can dominate our political discourse by the use of their wealth. These guys finance the Tea Party. The Tea Party may be irrational but it has succeeded so far.

“I share your prediction of domestic drones. I sincerely hope the FAA will implement and enforce controls to prevent the chaos we both envision and to protect domestic privacy.

“The People's Republic of China continues to baffle all outside observers as it has always done. I can only hope they figure prominently in the planning functions of the developed world's other governments.

“The importance of limited liability in our economics context is that it invalidates much of Adam Smith's economics. Smith made no attempt to deal with large-scale operations such as the Hudson Bay Company or the Dutch East India Company. Wealth of Nations, his best-known work, discusses local shopkeepers and small-scale manufacturers specifically because they were operated by sole proprietors or partnerships that were and are held fully accountable for any damage they caused. Today's economy does not turn on those small businesses, but on multi-national corporations and "too big to fail" banks. People who use Smith's ideas in relation to the enormous entities of the 21st Century are essentially trying to manipulate the rest of us. Unfortunately, they are largely succeeding. That is why so many people vote against themselves. The arbitration of wrongdoing and especially the public good are generally presented as among the objectives of economic systems in general; wealth in and of itself is a tool used for those ends. The differences arise in how each system tries to accomplish its objectives.”

 . . . my follow-up response:

            Re: landslides & sinkholes.  Yes to both; those are generally the causes of both geologic phenomena.  However, what is not so clear is any generalized linkage to global climate change. 

            Re: political discourse.  Agreed.  Likewise, I do not want anyone dominating the political discourse by anything other than the power of their rhetoric and strength of the argument.  The Tea Party is an excuse for intransigence rather than compromise.

            Re: drones.  The FAA has a legal responsibility to implement controls on the operation of unmanned aircraft in U.S. airspace.  We shall see how they choose to accomplish that task.

            Re: PRC.  If the PRC continues to treat their neighbors in the manner they have been doing so, I cannot see them being a beneficial influence in the developing world.

            Re: small business.  Interesting perspective, it seems to me.  The “too-big-to-fail” banks and large multinational corporations do indeed have an inordinate influence.  Yet, I do believe small businesses still account for the majority of economic activity.  I do not have any idea whether or how a proper correction takes place; but, that correction is needed.

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

Cheers,

Cap                        :-)