Update from the
Heartland
No.653
16.6.14 – 22.6.14
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
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.”
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.
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:
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.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
2 comments:
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.
Calvin,
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 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.
Cheers,
Cap
Post a Comment