Update no.652

Update from the Heartland

No.652

9.6.14 – 15.6.14

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

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

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/borderlands-view-beyond-ukraine?utm_source=freelist-f&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20140610&utm_term=Gweekly&utm_content=readmore

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

http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/24278-do-black-lesbians-have-a-right-to-self-defense

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

http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/24285-a-common-vision-the-abolition-of-militarism

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                        :-)