30 June 2014

Update no.654

Update from the Heartland
No.654
23.6.14 – 29.6.14
To all,

A continuation of the water rights thread from Updates no.652 & 653:
Round seven:
“While there may still be real reforms available in the Federal budget, thirty years of blindly cutting social programs has resulted in the U.S. losing its lead and prestige in many important areas and in harm to many of our citizens. In the meantime, a bloated military budget used to support Eisenhower's military-industrial complex combined with a variety of tax breaks (same as spending) for various profitable industries in no danger of failure still runs up the net cost of government with no benefit to the U.S. as a whole or to 95% of individual Americans. Add to that privatization of functions appropriate to government, such as prisons, and the bottom line doesn't really require in-depth analysis by this time. The only fault with Eisenhower's analysis is that he didn't see the rest of the economy following suit. Teddy Roosevelt saw it and made a good beginning of changing the situation.
“Farmers have migrated in the past and they will somehow do so again if they see it as necessary. It would be wise to somehow prevent their needing to do that, but industry does not tend to wisdom and government often fails as well. We shall see what happens. The situation will change somehow to fit the need. As always, most will not see it coming, whatever ‘it’ means for this situation.”
My response to round seven:
Calvin,
            Re: reforms.  The reforms of which I speak go far beyond the budget; nonetheless, the budget is a good start.  The Federal government took on massive, infrastructure projects that have had and will continue to have incalculable public benefit – interstate highway system, hydroelectric dams, river locks, et cetera.  Unfortunately, the electric grid evolved under largely private and state regulation, so inclusion of desalination cooperative inclusion would not be quite so easy, but I do believe still do-able.
            Re: farming migration.  Agreed!  Hopefully, our survival will not come to that societal disruption.

With the deteriorating situation in Iraq, Tom Ricks offers us a simple, succinct opinion regarding the reasons why.
foreignpolicy.com
Published: JUNE 24, 2014 - 11:01 AM
This moment has been suspected and forecast for more than a few years since Prime Minister Nouri Kamil Mohammed Hasan al-Maliki was elected to lead post-war Iraq.  Maliki has shown little interest in reaching out to Sunni and Kurd factions within the country.  ISIS (or ISIL) has been successful in predominately Sunni regions, as they are Sunni based and at least tacitly supported by the northwestern Sunni tribes.  The religious civil war predicted and feared for Iraq may finally have bloomed.  Let slip the dogs of war.

As is so often the case, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a bevy of rulings in a series of important cases at the end of their current session.  Among those decisions and on my reading list are:
-- American Broadcasting Cos., Inc., et al. v. Aereo, Inc., fka Bamboom Labs, Inc. [570 U.S. ___ (2014); no. 13–461] – a pivotal copyrights decision (very important for creative folks including authors); a few days later, Aereo suspended operations.
-- Abramski v. United States [570 U.S. ___ (2014); no. 12–1493] – another important 2nd Amendment ruling; this one deals with straw purchases of firearms.
-- Riley v. California [570 U.S. ___ (2014); no. 13–132] –may become a monumental decision regarding privacy in the digital age; cellphone data is protected by the 4th Amendment.
-- Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency et al. [570 U.S. ___ (2014); no. 12-1146] – limited the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate greenhouse gases.
-- National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning et al. [570 U.S. ___ (2014); no. 12-1281] – reined in the President’s authority to make recess appointments.
-- McCullen et al. v. Coakley, Attorney General of Massachusetts, et al. [570 U.S. ___ (2014); no. 12-1168] – invalidated a Massachusetts law that required 35-foot buffer zones around abortion clinics; I guess public safety does not trump freedom of speech.
I have a lot of reading and study ahead of me, as well as finishing books.  Life is good.

From a frequent contributor to this humble forum:
“Cap, you know I believe the study of history matters a great deal. Here's an interview with someone who has studied the history of the Second Amendment.”
The article is an interview with the author of a new book.
“The Second Amendment Doesn't Say What You Think It Does – Michael Waldman pokes holes in claims that the Constitution protects an unlimited right to guns.”
by Hannah Levintova
Mother Jones
Published: Thu Jun. 19, 2014; 6:00 AM EDT
The book:
Waldman, Michael. The Second Amendment: A Biography. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2014.
My response:
I suppose we should resign ourselves to the reality that the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is a Gordian Knot.  I cannot and do not argue with Levintova’s reflection of Waldman’s rendition of the 2nd Amendment.  I have not read Waldman’s book, so it is not possible for me to appreciate whether he provides a more expansive treatise in his 272-page book.  At least in the Levintova review, she acknowledges the different times.  In fact, she seems to focus more on an attack of Justice Scalia’s originalism perspective of constitutional interpretation than on gun rights.  What is missing from the article, review and apparently the book is the overriding necessity of demonstrated public good in constraints on constitutional rights.  Restrictions simply because we do not like guns is not a constitutionally sustainable argument.  I believe most Americans can and will support firearms restrictions, if a clearly defined public good is articulated, e.g., falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater is NOT freedom of speech.  Further, I also think it will be difficult to make that argument without addressing the root cause of gun violence (against innocent citizens).  Our laws cannot be out of context, and the 2nd Amendment is no different.
Round two:
Subject:  Re: [Fwd: Calvin Rittenhouse has forwarded a page to you from Mother Jones]
From:  "Uncle Calvin"
Date:  Sat, June 28, 2014 6:36 pm
To:  "cap@parlier.com"
“The issue with Justice Scalia's ‘originalism’ is that he makes no real effort to discern the original intent. He ignores, dismisses, or never detects the lengthy debate that went into the phrase ‘a well regulated militia.’ The early United States had good reason to mistrust standing armies; therefore, militias were a necessity. He also ignores that the Framers themselves lived in times when gunpowder and firearms were regulated. They made no objection to such regulations in their times, giving no reason to believe they sought broad freedom in weapons ownership. Finally, the entire subject of the debate is whether the Constitution actually grants a ‘right to bear arms’ outside of the context of a ‘well regulated militia.’

“The ‘demonstrated public good’ you request seems a bit obvious. The United States has far higher rates of homicide and assaults with deadly weapons than the more advanced nations of the world. We need to have less people die from firearms rather than seeking ‘bad men’ to blame.”
My response to round two:
            Re: Scalia.  I do not think your criticism of Justice Scalia regarding the history of the 2nd Amendment is quite fair. 
            Re: militias.  Yes, the suspicions of a standing federal army by the Founders and Framers were quite appropriate and well documented.  Reliance upon state militias for federal defense was considered a reasonable compromise to avoid or lessen the risks associated with the powerful standing federal army.  They also had plenty of experience with the threats of armed local militias, e.g., Shay’s Rebellion (1786) and Whiskey Rebellion (1791).  Yet, Congress passed two bills – the Militia Acts of 1792 [1 Stat. 264 and 1 Stat. 271] that required “each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective states” between 18 and 45 years of age to purchase and maintain a “musket or firelock,” despite their experience with local armed militias.  All those muskets were not regulated, controlled or otherwise even accounted for by the federal or state governments . . . and a long way from a “well regulated militia.” 
            Re: “demonstrated public good.”  The objective is quite clear.  Yes, the objective is protection of innocent citizens from random gun violence or even the threat of gun violence.  Where the debate lays is our path toward the objective.  I cannot support actions that deal with symptoms and do not address the root cause(s).
            So, what do you propose?  Can we agree on the root cause(s)?  If so, how do we attack the root cause(s)?
Round three:
“We can attempt to trace root causes back to Adam or we can admit that we cannot yet detect either severe mental illness or dangerous criminal intentions well enough to prevent either random firearm violence or the deaths of innocents during criminal enterprises. (Even if we could develop such methods, the Congress refuses to fund such enterprises.)
“Rather than spend another couple of generations attempting to determine who has final responsibility for whatever we eventually come to believe is the root cause, we need to prevent needless deaths by the most effective method. Given the extreme ease of killing with firearms versus almost any other method, that is a point where the process can be slowed. We regulate other potentially dangerous products such as medications and automobiles; we need to regulate this one too.”
My response to round three:
            As I stated . . . a Gordian Knot.
            OK, so for the moment and this debate, let us avoid the root causes and focus on the symptoms.
            What is your proposal?  What regulations should we implement to treat the symptoms?  And, more importantly, how do we ensure some zealous bureaucrat, politician, or prosecutor does not abuse your proposed regulation?

News from the economic front:
-- The U.S. Commerce Department reported its third and final assessment of the nation’s economy for 1Q2014.  The economy contracted at a 2.9% annual pace, worse than the previous 1% estimate – the worst quarter for the U.S. since 1Q2009, when the economy was staggered by the mortgage and financial crises.

Comments and contributions from Update no.653:
Comment to the Blog:
“We will continue our various discussions, but not at this very moment. I write this particular comment to clarify what I have said is the underlying difference. When I wrote the prior comment, my brain had misplaced the terms I wanted. That would be "duality" versus "non-duality." That is the underlying distinction that makes me not want to be associated at any level with the Abrahamic religions or any other similar belief systems. It is also what I believe to be the fundamental difference that affects all political discussion among other things.”
My response to the Blog:
            Re: religion.  I am not sure where “makes me not want to be associated” came from?  I am not aware of anyone trying to associate you with any religion or inversely disassociate you from your current religious faith.  Whether you choose to associate with any religion is entirely your choice – no one else’s.  Certainly, there are bad folks out there who are perfectly willing to use force to impose their religion on everyone who does not believe as they believe.  We have ample evidence of such people in history through today.  Our task is to defend you and everyone else against those bad folks and their efforts.
            Re: duality.  My apologies; I am not able to grasp your meaning in your use of “duality” in this context.  An expanded explanation would be appreciated when you get a moment to do so.
            Re: Abrahamic religions.  There is good in ALL religions.  I would simply urge everyone to find and appreciate the good in all religions, while we try to marginalize or isolate the bad elements.  Knowledge helps us find the good and separate the bad.
 . . . follow-up comment:
“That insistence that all gods are one God (‘we're all working with the same thing in the end’) is what bothers me. No, we're not.
“There is some level of good in the people of any religion. That does not mean I want any part of the religion.
“Non-duality is a common Buddhist concept. A simple Google search should turn up a wealth of information on it.”
 . . . my follow-up response:
Calvin,
            Re: God.  I suppose this is where we say, each to his own.
            Re: religion.  Agreed.  The social factors govern our associations, which are again a matter of individual choice in a free society.
            Re: duality.  I understand duality.  What is not clear to me is your use of the philosophical instrument as a means of discrimination.  Why is duality important to your associations?

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

23 June 2014

Update no.653

Update from the Heartland
No.653
16.6.14 – 22.6.14
To all,

President Obama awarded the Medal of Honor to Corporal William Kyle Carpenter, USMC (Ret.), 24, of South Carolina, for exemplary valor in combat as part of Fox Company, 2nd Battalion, 9th Marines.  On 21.November.2010, while standing watch with his fellow Marine, Lance Corporal Nicholas Eufrazio, on a rooftop in Marjah, Afghanistan, Carpenter threw himself on an enemy grenade to save his friend and comrade.  Carpenter suffered incredible injuries and miraculously survived.  He has since overcome most of his wounds, as he became only the second living Marine to receive the nation’s highest award.  God bless you, Corporal Carpenter, for your extraordinary service to this Grand Republic.

A continuation of the water rights thread from Update no.652:
Round six:
“Water is indeed recycled eventually, although pollution devalues some of it. The disruption comes from people tying water up in crops, domestic and food animals, swimming pools, and various other human enterprises. The water does not necessarily follow the natural process and can be tied up in such things as stored food for decades.
“Wikipedia has an interesting, if technical article, on desalination at:
‘Desalination, desalinization, and desalinisation refer to any of several processes that remove some amount of salt and other minerals from saline water.’
“This article notes that desalination at present is costly in energy, which carries its own issues, and in overall financial costs. What we are discussing is current events. In places near oceans that can somehow bear the upfront costs, which includes California, desalination may be a solution or partial solution. The worldwide water issue will require more.”
My reply to round six:
            All valid points and observations.  Just like other “limited” resources, we must find alternate means.  Trying to live without potable water is not an option I am aware of in the foreseeable future.  We must migrate our energy consumption away from fossil fuels, as they are a dwindling resource.  Our electricity generating plants of all forms dissipate heat as a waste byproduct to enable continued operation; why not apply that heat for an alternate purpose – desalination of seawater.  Yes, it will take investment to convert powerplants for that purpose, but that is an infrastructure investment that seems reasonable for government and all taxpayers.  Yes, farmers must adapt, but arable land going fallow in a world of expanding population does not seem like a wise choice.  It is truly heart rending to see vast stretches of once green, lush, growing land on the Westside of the San Joaquin Valley returned to desert; yet, in the short term, there is no choice, as people cannot live without water.
 . . . to which the contributor added:
“This comes from Mother Jones, which has a distinct progressive slant. However, the information appears reasonably accurate and this is highly relevant to our current discussion, especially the survey stating that Californians do not want to spend money on water supply fixes.”
Weather-Sensitive Watering, and 4 Other Simple Fixes for California's Drought
| Tue Jun. 17, 2014 6:01 AM EDT
The associated article:
“Weather-Sensitive Watering, and 4 Other Simple Fixes for California's Drought”
by Gabrielle Canon
Mother Jones
Published: Tuesday, June 17, 2014; 6:01 AM EDT
My response:
Works for me; let’s do it!
Round seven:
“Desalination by means of co-generation is a perfectly rational idea that will not happen short of major disasters. The notions that taxation is evil and that government or government-mandated expenditures are necessarily wasteful dominate the national discussion right now. Hence added emphasis on conservation measures, many of which are free or cheap. People who care will find much more success with smaller measures that have widespread application.
“Another factor may show up in the form of migration. Farmers dislike moving for many reasons, but rainfall is increasing elsewhere. There is a reasonable chance that farming will follow the rain. Either way, we live in interesting times. I would rather not, but I have no more choice than anyone else.”
My reply to round seven:
            Interesting times, indeed!
            While there will always be malcontents or extremists who advocate for us to return to our agrarian past of millennia ago, I believe most folks (a significant majority) will respond properly to a convincing cost-benefit rationale.
            Becoming nomadic farmers is hard for me to imagine, given just the equipment and infrastructure of modern, high-yield farming.
            Clearly, something must be done to adapt to our changing world.
   “That’s just my opinion, but I could be wrong.”
Cheers,
Cap
Round eight:
“I'm not sure who/what you mean by ‘malcontents or extremists who advocate for us to return to our agrarian past of millennia ago.’ The ideas about taxation and government spending come from those currently dominating the House of Representatives and obstructing the Senate. They have no interest in cost/benefit analysis; they are trapped in their own ideas.
“Nomadic farmers, no; that is a contradiction. Farmers who immigrate are another matter. The Midwest is populated with descendents of exactly those people. The current financial structure of farming (except among the Amish) would indeed make migration difficult. Many farmers are also tied to the land by family and feeling. Migration will only happen if the farmers see no alternative, which is becoming more likely by the day.”
My reply to round eight:
Calvin,
            Re: malcontents.  Those you cite in the current Congress would be among representatives within my definition and description.  The group goes far beyond just those elected to Congress.  Yet, I must say, I pay plenty in taxes every year and will for the rest of my natural life.  However, I am not particularly interested in paying more without substantial reforms.  A comprehensive cost-benefit analysis is the only way Treasury expenditures should be determine.  So, I do agree, many in Congress are driven by partisan political ideology rather than the public good, i.e., they want to spend money on their stuff, not anyone else’s stuff.
            Re: nomadic farmers.  Indeed; I thought that was what you were describing.  Nomadic people generally follow the weather and the conditions for their survival over millennia.  Land ownership remains a monumental obstacle.  I suspect there will be many other alternatives tried before chasing the weather becomes viable.

News from the economic front:
-- The U.S. Department of Justice announced a US$968M settlement with SunTrust Banks to settle allegations of abusive mortgage lending and servicing practices.  The bank admitted it did not comply with lending standards mandated for loans insured by the Federal Housing Administration (FHA).  The settlement involves 49 state attorneys general and several federal agencies.
-- The U.S. Federal Reserve Board Open Market Committee decided to reduce its asset purchases by another US$10B to a monthly pace of US$35B and issued an upbeat statement that made no concession to signs of higher inflation as well as noting that “economic activity has rebounded in recent months.”
-- The HSBC preliminary manufacturing Purchasing Managers' Index (PMI) for the People’s Republic of China (PRC) came in at a seven-month high of 50.8, up from 49.4 last month.  The PMI is a measure of the PRC's factory activity and showed fresh signs of strength in June, helped by improved export demand and a program of economic support for the economy.  It was the first time this year that it moved above the key 50 mark, which indicates expansion from the previous month.

Comments and contributions from Update no.652:
Comment to the Blog:
“I read the Friedman analysis through and got a very different impression. Friedman's take on Russia is that Russians believe the U.S. subverted the Ukrainian government for the benefit of Western Europe and to weaken Russia. That belief makes sense due to the U.S. history of doing exactly that. What disturbs me about Friedman’s article is its narrow viewpoint and insistence on continuing the Cold War. The fall of Russian Communism was a disaster for Friedman and his kind because it should have deprived them of an easy career psychoanalyzing the other side. They have apparently just gone on doing that and succeeded because elements in Russia continue the conflict with no ideological reason for it and despite its economic drawbacks. The continuing geopolitical games have cost the U.S. a great deal of money, social progress, and international prestige. Perhaps a new viewpoint is in order once the current screwup is resolved.
“I will note here that law enforcement is not on Forbes.com's list of the ten most dangerous jobs (http://www.forbes.com/sites/jacquelynsmith/2013/08/22/americas-10-deadliest-jobs-2/).  However, I remain certain that law enforcement has the highest rate of institutional paranoia except possibly the spy community.
“The current conflict in Iraq is another example of our geopolitical meddling. The lives and wealth Obama is willing to commit to further attempts at controlling the uncontrollable are a tragic loss to our own nation. The destruction of other nations and the futility of our efforts continue, but the aging and outdated infrastructure in the U.S. is even more important. The discussion of water rights concerns one of these infrastructure issues.
“Re Mairead Maguire's article on militarism. If ‘military strength must be maintained and perpetually improved,’ the human race is doomed to exterminate ourselves. I see Maguire's ‘idealism’ as simple realism based on the past century of human history. Maintaining conflict involves at least two sides. Those you see as ‘evil’ will keep up with those you see as ‘good.’ Thus, annihilation.
“A correction to one of my comments from the past week. Rather than say, ‘Religions of every sort present themselves as the sole source of spirituality,’ I should have said, ‘Abrahamic religions of every sort . . .’ Buddhists, Hindus, and many others are entitled to take offense to the original statement. If any of them read this, I regret my false statement.
“I cannot and will not accept the notion that my spirituality is the same creature as Christian spirituality regardless of denomination. That is offensive.”
My response to the Blog:
            Re: Friedman.  I do believe you are being rather harsh on George Friedman, but that is your choice.
            Re: Russia.  I see Friedman’s assessment quite differently, so it seems.  Putin has displayed similar traits as his predecessor Uncle Joe did 70 years ago.  I do not believe the current fracas in Eastern Ukraine will be resolved soon.  I imagine Vlad is quite patient, to allow things to simmer, and for Europe & the U.S. to be diverted to some other crisis.  Once he has swallowed the eastern provinces of the Ukraine, he is quite likely to turn his attention to the Baltic states, or Moldova, or Romania, to flank the remainder of the Ukraine.  This little international stage play will take many years, if not a decade or two.
            Re: LE.  Again, I do not agree with your assessment or perspective.
            Re: Iraq & meddling.  To be frank and rather blunt, it appears your view of the situation in Iraq is rather myopic.  Apparently, you did not see nor were you concerned with Saddam’s sponsorship of various Islamo-fascist organizations, even before the creation of al-Qa’ida.  Further, perhaps you do not concur with my assessment that ISIS resources will be deployed beyond Iraq and the Levant once this battle is done.  As was the case 80 years ago, we have the choice of dealing the Islamo-fascists in their neighborhood, or waiting until they are much stronger and dealing with them in our neighborhoods.  The choice is clear to me.  These are bad men in the classic sense.
            Re: militarism.  I do not share your pessimistic inevitability.  While I do ascribe some credence to Smedley Butler’s “War is a Racket” hypothesis, I do not agree with the extension that as long as there is a military, we will generate wars to employ or occupy the military.  Further, I do not agree with the extension of military strength to annihilation of the human species.  I do truly believe we would enjoy peace and tranquility, if there were no bad men, willing to subvert nations or groups for their harmful purposes.  We did not go to war because we wanted to, or because the military needed a war, and that includes the War on Islamic Fascism.
            Re: religion.  Agreed, Buddhists and Hindus do not commonly use their religion as justification for war or forced evangelization.  The revealed religions have a far more ample history of using their religion as rationale and justification for violence, the younger two more so than the older.
            Re: spirituality.  I do not recall ever applying such specificity to spirituality.  Quite the contrary, it is the general inclusion of all religions, including none, that I use the term religion or spirituality.  My argument is, God is God, regardless of what name we refer to Him, what gender or appearance we see Him, or how we worship Him.  I certainly mean no offense to you, or anyone else for what or how they may (or may not) believe.  Your spirituality is yours, mine is mine.
 . . . follow-up comment:
“Rather than answer your points in order as I usually do, I'll get to the central point first. I object to ‘God is God, regardless of what name we refer to Him, what gender or appearance we see Him, or how we worship Him.Only at the most utterly abstract level. The basic premise on which Abrahamic and some other beliefs is based is the dichotomy of God versus Satan, good versus evil, Heaven versus earth, spiritual versus material, us versus them. I insist that I will not be included in that. I share with the Buddhists and others the concept of a single unified Universe (or, to be more correct in modern physics, Multi-verse). That is the thread of disagreement that runs through this entire discussion.
“The fall of Russian Communism was a disaster for the military and especially for the spy community because they need an opponent or they have no function. (They found several.) In a very similar vein, seeing Putin, the ‘Islamo-Fascist terrorists’ and whomever as people rather than monsters to be conquered takes much of the emotional power out of fighting wars.
“I do not seek conflict, and I do not believe the planet as a whole or the human race as a whole benefit from choosing war as an early option rather than seeking less destructive methods, such as applying law enforcement to the 9-11 attack as we did for the Oklahoma City bombing. Analyzing the motivations and psychological labels of the "other," in this context, is not an effort to understand or to lessen conflict but a search for advantages by which the ‘other’ may be destroyed.
“Thus, my disagreements.”
 . . . my follow-up response:
            Re: religion.  Oddly, I do believe we are agreed, despite your disagreement.  When you look beyond the immediate trappings of any religion (or even none), there are commonalities to which I refer.  As you noted the Buddhist’s belief . . . that is The God to which I refer.
            Re: monsters versus people.  Well now, I suppose the direct point is, I don’t really care what they are or what they believe, if they did not harm other people or export their violence (ideology) beyond their domain.  If the people choose to live under strict, fundamentalist, Taliban-interpreted “law,” I am good with that.  If Putin chose to let his neighbors live in peace and choose their path among nations, I don’t really care how corrupt or Stalinist he chooses to be.  I do not make the monsters, they demonstrate their state for the world to judge.  Perhaps a simple analogy, I have no problem whatsoever with anyone who chooses to smoke tobacco as long as they do not pollute my air, my space, my land.  Yet, when a smoker tosses his lighted cigarette butt into the roadside grass or on the ground in a public space, he disrespects and threatens all of us – that is my point.
            Re: the “other.”  I do not seek conflict with anyone.  I want to live in peace, free do enjoy the rich bounty of God’s little green earth and the universe in which it endures.  The problem arises when some yayhoo decides to harm my family or take what does not belong to him.  History has shown in splendid detail, half-measures or proportional responses are not successful.  It is really quite simple, if you respect me, I will respect you, we both live in peace.  If not, then we have a problem.
   “That’s just my opinion, but I could be wrong.”
Cheers,
Cap


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

16 June 2014

Update no.652

Update from the Heartland
No.652
9.6.14 – 15.6.14
To all,

With the continuing violence in Eastern Ukraine, the following essay is worthy of review.
“Borderlands: The View Beyond Ukraine”
by George Friedman, Chairman, Stratfor
Geopolitical Weekly
Strategic Forecasting, Inc. (Stratfor)
Published: TUESDAY, JUNE 10, 2014 - 03:00
The Friedman observations are informative and illuminating.  As I see it, Putin must feel progressive resistance for his societal paranoia or megalomania.  The similarities with Hitler’s Lebensraum remain striking.  I continue to wonder where we will draw the line, as well as the consequences for that decision.  Please see the Maguire opinion below.

Here is another related exchange that might be of broader interest.
“Your Updates are great and I encourage more people on my list, to consider a contribution to them.
“Wishing your LE son all the safety and security in doing his job, at times very risky.
“Unfortunately the officer safety aspects for LE officers/deputies/agents congregating is changing as do the threats.  I've noticed at Starbucks when LE people come in for coffee, they do not park their patrol vehicles in the same place like before, they spread them out so it is hard for someone on the outside to determine how many officers/deputies you have inside. Recall at the coffeehouse in Lakewood, Washington, where 4 officers were murdered ambush style.  Policies changed nationwide, after that.
“My long time mindset has been if I ever see an officer/deputy in trouble--I will come to the assistance of that LE person.  Most ironically, I was sitting down in Coronado the other night in the Suburban, and just behind me a patrol car pulled up and female officer got out and confronted a 5150 (or to be nice, a 5149.5) female in the crosswalk's center median that is grass.  All of a sudden I hear the subject start screaming at the officer and I got out to assess what was happening, and the officer was my ex-girlfriend [xGF].  I've seen her a few times, but we've never face-to-faced since breaking up.   The only reason I would have approached is if the verbal went physical between officer and subject.  You should have heard the names being called by the older white woman towards [xGF].  I was hoping her cover was on the way and suspected she had called for it.  I was surprised it did not at least go to pepper spray.  [xGF] seemed to use much restraint whereas in other communities with other officers/deputies, I have no doubt the subject would have been taken down to ground and handcuffed (for something, at least for an attitude adjustment).   Luckily an officer quickly arrived and got out and he was about 6' 5", and walked up and about that time they let the woman just walk away.  It would have been too weird if I had to help Officer [xGF] if that had escalated.   Strangely, about an hour later the same street wandering woman walks by myself and another chauffeur while we were standing out our principal's restaurant, and Bill said something to me and she thought he said to her ‘just go’ and started to confront him, I told her ‘he did not say just go ma'am, and was not talking to you.’  She seemed to want trouble.  It's all par for the course, some drunk guy approached me the other day downtown and out of nowhere threatened to punch me, I was standing with 2 other chauffeurs and when he squared off I told him it would be the biggest mistake he made, and the beer he just bought (big 32 ounce bottle) he'd end up losing that too.  Now you know why I carry counter-measures.  Let me summarize by saying the rate people are going crazy, is scary.”
My response:
            Re: assistance to LE.  I’m with you.  For me, it is personal.  I make a point of conveying my appreciation to all LE and first responders for the incredible service they perform daily for all of us.
            Re: crazy people.  There are such folks everywhere, in every country, in every walk of life, and in every social stratum.  Unfortunately, there are often amplifiers for those crazies – alcohol, psychotropic substances, adulation, money, trappings of power – which compound the crazies for the rest of us.  Our task should be to illuminate such conduct, communicate the potential and ramifications, and hopefully mobilize the citizenry to collectively intervene to preclude injury or harm to others.
  “That’s just my opinion, but I could be wrong.”
Cheers,
Cap
Postscript: The Law Enforcement analogy is a microcosm of the broader international relations challenges we face.  There are lessons to be learned and applied.

The shocking rapidity of advance and violence in Northern Iraq by the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) [AKA Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS), or Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL)] – a radical, fundamentalist, militant, Muslim group led by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi – made us all think.  In one week, ISIS fighters took control of Mosul, Kirkuk, Tikrit and other smaller towns nearby, as they advanced toward Baghdad.  At last quasi-confirmed news, ISIS fighters were at the outskirts of Baghdad, facing very little resistance from the Iraqi army.  The Iraqi police and military simply evaporated, leaving their weapons and equipment in tact, as the ISIS fighters moved south.  The ISIS group apparently seeks to impose Taliban-like, Islamic governance in the territory it controls, and their stated objective is control of Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Jordan and Iraq (i.e., the Levant – a remnant from French protectorate control under the Picot-Sykes Agreement of 1916).  ISIS also appears to be farther to the right than al-Qa’ida on the jihadi extremist scale, and they are reportedly finding sympathetic, local, Sunni support.  The Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) has reportedly deployed strong military and paramilitary forces to protect its borders from the spillover of the ISIS gains in Iraq and quite probably to assist the Shia-led Baghdad government.  The civil war raged in Syria for several years now has officially expanded into Northern and Western Iraq, which is bound to further inflame sectarian conflict in the region and open civil war in Iraq.  It would appear the window for negotiation, compromise and inclusion in Iraq has closed, and now, the Iraqis shall suffer civil war as religious sects fight over control of the land, resources and the people.  If it was just civil war, I might be inclined to say, let them have at it.  However, once the civil war is settled, ISIS will turn its guns and skills in other directions as they seek to impose their religious beliefs on others . . . such is the nature of jihad these days.  There will be a reckoning with these deadly forces eventually.

This is an extended thread with a friend and frequent contributor that may be of interest to others.
“In the ‘I didn't know this’ department: states are beginning to legalize collecting the rain that falls on your property. It seems the default condition, at least in Western states, is that rain belongs to ‘water rights owners,’ not the person who owns the property. So much for that Western tradition of the rugged individualist. You're not even allowed to take care of yourself. This one comes from the National Conference of State Legislatures, as neutral a source as any. (The search was stimulated by a posting on Facebook from an unknown source.)”
My reply:
            Water rights have been a big deal in the West for a very long time.  Most notable perhaps is the mighty Colorado River that has been dammed up and siphoned off to a mere trickle by the time it reaches its alluvial delta in Mexico, barely and often not flowing enough to hold seawater at bay in the delta region.  Another good example is the Owens Valley predicament in Eastern California to supply water to Los Angeles.  Colorado & Kansas have maintained a long-running legal battle regarding runoff that supplies the Arkansas River.  Atmospheric precipitates are part of the runoff that supplies all rivers and most reservoirs.  Most western states have laws that preclude landowners from interfering with the natural flow of rivers, i.e., constructing dams, canals or other collection/extraction facilities.  As can be expected, these debates boil down to definitions.  Is collecting rainwater off the roof of your house in a cistern for future use considered interfering with “natural flow”?  I doubt it.  However, as populations grow and water becomes progressively more precious, it could come to those legal battles.
Round Two:
“Having lived in the West for only a few months, I was not aware of the details of the laws. I found it obvious in 2008, when I lived in Tucson, that conflicts had begun over water, but I did not realize that they affected individual home owners who did not farm. I gather the changes are coming as a result of rain barrels and cisterns becoming more popular among the Mother Earth News crowd. According to some sources, gathering the rain that falls by those means can be seen as illegal in many places, and that has brought about formal legalization in Colorado and here in Ohio among other places. I find it fascinating that some of the same conservatives who would hold the individual solely responsible for his misfortunes would not allow him to take measures such as these to prevent or alleviate those same misfortunes.”
My reply to Round Two:
            I must admit I am not familiar with any individual homeowner rainfall capture laws.  News to me!  If so, that seems quite excessive and as you say intrusive.  However, if we take that situation to an extreme, e.g., a landowner of 100,000 acres who manages to “capture” the rainfall or snowmelt on his land could affect downstream consumers.  So, there must be limits or constraints as to what is permissible.  Regulating the common, residential, home, rainfall capture would hardly be in that category.  Further, even if every home had such a capture system, runoff from rain gutters has not heretofore been considered “usable.”  I suppose one of my “extreme” conditions might affect river flow.  Anyway, I’ve just not heard of that level of individual intrusion.
Round Three:
“Apparently, someone found the situation dubious enough to clarify it. At this point, several states have found it worthwhile to clarify the rain barrel issue.
“The other facet mentioned in the article is that some lawyer or someone apparently thought there was some chance of a liability issue about the use of the water. The State of Ohio, however, allows general household usage. Apparently this state, with more than its fair share of liability worriers, does not think highly of that risk.
“PS: Here's the quote from the article that gives the central issue (emphasis mine):
“‘States must ensure water-quality standards and public health concerns are met. In some states, such as Colorado, previous water law stated that all precipitation belonged to existing water-rights owners, and that rain needed to flow to join its rightful water drainage.’”
My reply to Round Three:
            As with most public debate topics, the central challenge is balance, and there must be a tangible or demonstrable public interest.  I have a hard time understanding how a single-family residence is going to affect the flow of the Mississippi or Ohio Rivers.
Round Four:
“I agree that the underlying issue of most debates is balance. My small fund of information on Western water issues involves exceptionally little balance. Agriculture consumes 80% of California's water, for example, and wishes to relinquish nothing to anyone even as the supply drops. Developers and homeowners want to keep theirs, too, and even insist upon green lawns as if the Constitution guaranteed them. There are more players, but few good guys. If the changing climate continues the drought trend in the West, they and the rest of the country face disaster.”
My reply to Round Four:
            Re: water rights.  Yes, agriculture consumes a lot of water, but that is also why the Central Valley of California is one of the most prolific food producing regions on the planet.  We cannot survive without water or food.  Again, we are back to balance. 
            As with fossil fuels, we must find alternate sources, as our primary source falls behind demand.  With 70% of the Earth’s surface covered by water, it would seem the logical alternate is desalinization.  We are going to need it eventually, so best we get on with it.
Round Five:
“I certainly understand the need for food and California's importance in providing it. Does that mean the farmers need not conserve water or develop new technology or crop strains to meet the climate change, even if it costs some short-term profitability drops? If other residents of California have to give up some of their water, how may they do that with only 20% of consumption? The real answer is for some of these people and operations to move to places where water is or becomes abundant, but that presents a host of other issues.
“The overwhelming facts are that Southern California and the Central Valley have long been overusing their (and others') water resources, and that now those resources are shrinking. People are investigating alternative sources, but successes as yet are few and expensive, both in terms of money and in energy usage.
“I wish I knew a real answer. I know that some fixes can be put in place. For example, irrigation canals are open, causing large losses through evaporation and additional issues of contamination. Some well-designed covers would alleviate those problems and could perhaps provide solar power as well. However, given the situation and current trends, I doubt that and similar ‘common sense’ measures will be enough to reverse the shortfall.”
My reply to Round Five:
            All valid points, and I agree.  Canals were built decades ago as quick means to move a lot of water from supply to demand.  As water becomes more precious, the “losses” associated with open, aging canals make the inefficiencies more pronounced.  Yes, as always, we are drawn back to balance.  Yet, as is all too often the case, we tend to take the path of least resistance – it is easy to cut water allocations and divert water for other purposes.  Digging deeper wells or stopping the flow of rivers may seem more practical than massive desalinization, but the clock is ticking and we need more sustainable solutions as you have noted.  We need visionary leadership, not stop-gap legislative actions and knee-jerk reactions.

“Do Black Lesbians Have a Right to Self-Defense?”
by Victoria Law
Truthout | Film Review
Published: Wednesday, 11 June 2014; 10:24
The article is actually a review of the documentary film “Out in the Night.”  Yet, as the title suggests, we have an interesting question.  While the film and the review deal with the special issues in one particular case, the root question is far larger and more profound than the subject case.  The direct, most fundamental answer is simply, YES!  Every human being, regardless of the social factors, traditional homophobia, or the intolerance of radical, fundamentalist, Islamic teachings has the right to live in peace, without fear, to make their personal life choices for the enrichment of their lives, without interference from others who may disagree with their choices.  Isn’t this the essence of freedom and liberty?

“A Common Vision - The Abolition of Militarism”
by Mairead Maguire
Inter Press Service | Op-Ed
Published: Wednesday, 11 June 2014; 09:42
As the saying goes, ain’t love grand!  Indeed, it is.  Likewise, the idealism of Rodney King also cajoles us all to just get along.  Idealism is likewise grand, noble and a lofty objective.  However, not everyone can be so magnanimous and respectful of others. Mairead Maguire offers us her brand of idealism, and she is uniquely qualified as the 1976 Nobel Laureate for Peace, based on her contributions in the effort to end the deep sectarian/ethnic/political conflict in her native Northern Ireland.  Regrettably, there are bad men in this world who hold violence in their hearts, have little to no respect for other human beings, if not life itself, and who feel compelled to impose their will, their beliefs, their values, their faith on every other human being willing to submit to his oppression.  As we approach the centennial remembrance of the consequent events that sprang from the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria-Este, crown prince of the Habsburg, Austro-Hungarian Empire, perhaps we can believe, with today’s swift communications, we might avoid the cataclysm that ensued from that singular event in June 1914.  While Maguire’s idealism is noble and laudable, military strength must be maintained and perpetually improved to ensure what peace we have.  As with Prohibition, we tried disarmament in the 1920’s, and we had political leaders that were so desperate to hold onto misty, wafts of peace, they chose to ignore the mounting signs all around them.  By the time the true colors of the fascists were unmistakable and unavoidable, the peace-loving countries were woefully ill-prepared to stop or even restrain those bent upon domination of others.  Once the wolf began to feed on the flock, only one outcome could stop him.

Comments and contributions from Update no.651:
Comment to the Blog:
“Bowe Bergdahl is getting more media attention than his situation warrants. As best I understand the legalese, he would have been Absent WithOut Leave (AWOL) when captured and a prisoner of war ever since. Some news source (on CBS News, I think) stated that desertion requires a longer period of absence prior to his capture by the other side. Apparently Bergdahl left his post against orders, but I will leave it up to the military legal system to define the offense. In the meantime, the prisoner exchange is simply one facet of military life. All the rest is showmanship and nonsense.
“It's always possible the economy is improving. If I get a job, my personal economy will surely improve.
“Your correspondent who addressed his or her county council and reminded them of their duty to support the dependents of soldiers provided a better service than anyone offering prayers.
“Your other commenter who used all those metaphors gives me the impression that he does not deal with reality. All of those board games put together offer confusion but no evidence of anything bordering on knowledge. If my guess is correct, he is a conspiracy theorist at best. In addition, the focus on long-distance psychoanalysis of prominent figures rather than evidence of concrete operations and objectives leaves me uninterested. We could analyze any prominent individual's thinking, but we have no way of understanding the other people influencing those public figures, and much information is not available to anyone outside their immediate circles. Secrets can still be kept if they do not reach the Internet.
“My most prominent ancestor was a Mennonite who may well have fled religious persecution. I myself am part of a religion that is unpopular and a small minority. I do not believe that injecting religion of any sort, Christian or otherwise, into public life is balanced or appropriate. We need simply to protect all Americans' right to worship or refrain as they choose, so long as they do no damage to others. That is enough.”
My response to the Blog:
           Re: Bergdahl.  All this drama regarding the exchange is so bloody misguided and driven by partisan parochialism.  How he became a POW is a separate issue.  My point was, the President made the decision to trade Taliban leaders to recover Bergdahl; he made a good decision and deserves credit for that decision.  Whether Bergdahl is a deserter, or AWOL, or just a dupe is for military investigators to determine.  I am certain the military will take the appropriate action depending upon the findings of the investigation.  I’m not sure what you are referring to in your statement: “All the rest is showmanship and nonsense”?
            Re: economy.  I wish you the best of luck finding employment you enjoy.
            Re: prayer.  I think we agreed on that comment regarding an opening inspirational statement of purpose.
            Re: “long-distance psychoanalysis.”  “Prominent figures” are proper debate topics, as they should be.  We form our opinions based on the information available to us by whatever means we find useful.  History strongly suggests far too many people wanted to see the good in Hitler, rather than trying to understand what motivated him.  If more people had read Mein Kampf prior to 1933 or 1938, history might have come out differently.
            Re: religion in public life.  As I have tried to make the case for, I am against religion in public life; however, I also think God is important in public life, as we all need a higher power to help us avoid chaos, anarchy and disorder.  We need to be reminded that we are NOT the center of the universe, and we are NOT individuals independent from everyone else.  I continue to maintain there is a distinct difference between God and religion.  So, the struggle for balance continues.
“That’s just my opinion, but I could be wrong.”
Cheers,
Cap
 . . . follow-up comment:
“In respect to Bowe Bergdahl, what I mean by ‘showmanship and nonsense’ is pretty much what you mean by ‘all this drama.’ A certain level of public interest in his future is inevitable, but the entire matter has been seized upon for political purposes as have so many others in the new century.
“I feel that extended discussion of prominent figures' internal motivations and other things that are essentially impossible to pin down serve little purpose. What if, rather than read Mein Kampf back in 1938, world leaders had studied Hitler's patterns of operation? It was easy to see that he was taking one territory after another by any possible means. The reason Hitler got so far is that people such as Neville Chamberlain tried to figure out his motivations rather than respond to his actions. That failed in a massive way. Churchill saw what Hitler did and eventually got his chance to respond, but by then the situation was far out of hand. In a parallel to that, we shall see whether Putin continues to support armed revolt in the Ukraine, whether he moves on other territories, etc. Whether he is a narcissist, egotist, or some other label is for historians to pick over later.
“I see major issues with ‘the difference between God and religion.’ The most obvious of these is that Americans are free to not recognize any Greater Power. They are, in fact, entitled to believe human beings are the center of the Universe and its appropriate guiding force, however unlikely that may seem to you and me. That is a belief or belief system in relation to ‘God.’ They believe in none of it beyond themselves. And that is humanism, not quite atheism. Beyond that, many people will never recognize any distinction between ‘God’ and their religions. Religions of all sorts each present themselves as the sole source of spirituality. Followers of any given religion rarely separate the two. I share that distinction between religion and spirituality but then I have still another issue. Regardless of the fluff circulating on the Internet and elsewhere, I am not a universalist. That is, I do not believe that we all ultimately follow the same possibly benevolent Power. I regard the Judeo-Christian-Muslim God with fear and distaste even though individual Christians, Jews, and Muslims can be wonderful people. There is no way I can reconcile that God with what I find worthy of my worship. How about we keep all of that out of public life?
 . . . my follow-up response:
            Re: showmanship and nonsense.  OK.  Agreed.  The Bergdahl recovery should have been celebrated, but as you say, political partisanship has whipped up the event into a deep froth to confuse the whole episode in an attempt to transform what should have been a celebration into a condemnation.
            Re: prominent figures.  The problem with understanding the motivations of human beings is they are predominately hidden within the individual brain.  The best we can do is absorb as much as we can and try to connect the dots.  The problem I have is, Hitler told us what was in his mind, spelled out what he wanted to do, and his actions in the early years were precisely what he said he would do.  The appeasers were simply so desperate to preserve the peace they could not see the disturbing image immerging from the dots.  Putin will indeed be revealed in history.
            Re: God.  I believe you are reflecting the same principles I am, just from a different perspective.  We cannot allow any religion to be forced upon anyone in a free society.  Further, as I have said many times, God is who each of us believes He is in our hearts and souls, NOT who others tell us He is.  Yes, again, you are quite correct, the revealed religions each claims to be the only true path to God, redemption and eternal salvation (heaven), which parochialism has led to so much destruction in human history.  If we cannot reconcile the separation between church & state, or between God and religion, then I would have to agree.  We simply cannot accept religion in secular governance and politics – the potential for abuse is just too great.

Another contribution:
“I believe strongly that the most important question about the prisoner swap, now that it is a fate e comple (??)  is what can and will be done to minimize the danger of contributions to terrorism that will surely come from the star terrorists exchanged for the poor sergeant, regardless of what his behavior had to do with it.  In my opinion, the mistake was grave on many levels, but now we need to prepare for the consequences and, only incidentally but certainly, hold the young man accountable for his actions.  Our POTUS apparently will never be held accountable for his, because of our weak Congress and because its too late for our stupid electorate to do anything but try to do better in 2016.”
My reply:
Roger,
            My apologies for the delayed response.
            Re: POW swap.  Indeed, it is a fait accompli.  President Obama, as with all presidents, will be held accountable by history.  We will see what these guys get up to post-exchange.  I expect our security forces are up to the task.
            As a related side note: recent Press reports suggest the Army is more culpable in this whole Bergdahl kerfuffle than previously understood.  We shall see.

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