Update from the
Heartland
No.709
13.7.15 – 19.7.15
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
The follow-up news items:
-- The Greek Parliament approved (229 of the nation's 300-seat
assembly) a crucial set of austerity measures required for a eurozone bailout
package [704], after Greek voters
rejected austerity measures [707]. Banks opened on Monday morning, with
some limits on withdrawals by Greek citizens. I suspect this flurry of activity simply kicked the can down
the road. We will return to this
point, again.
-- The jury in the Aurora, Colorado, mass-shooting case
(20.7.2012) [554/55] found the
shooter guilty on all counts and specifically rejected the defendant’s insanity
defense. The sentencing phase
begins.
-- President Obama announced an agreement with the Islamic Republic
of Iran (IRI), regarding the Middle Eastern theocracy’s nuclear development
program and specifically its nuclear weapons objectives. Despite the very wrong letter by 47
U.S. senators [691] and per the
previously agreed ‘framework’ [694],
the P5+1 Group {People’s Republic of China (PRC), France, Russia, United
Kingdom, and United States, plus Germany, i.e., the United Nations Security
Council Permanent Members + Germany} [well actually, rather than P5+1, it is
actually EU/EU3 + 3] reached agreement with the IRI. The government has submitted the agreement to Congress for
the required 60-day review in accordance with the recently passed Iran Nuclear
Agreement Review Act of 2015 [PL 114-017; 129 Stat. xxx], which begins on Monday, 20.July.2015. The congressional review promises to be
quite contentious. I have not
reviewed the public document, as yet.
However, when the alternative is war, diplomacy is worth the attempt. Something is better than nothing. Let us give the President credit for
the courage to attempt achieving acceptable results without bloodshed. Further, let us give peace a chance.
In the
continuing Greek tragedy of contemporary times, we have another interesting
opinion.
“An Empire Strikes Back: Germany and the Greek Crisis”
by George Friedman
Strategic Forecasting, Inc. (Stratfor)
Published: JULY 14, 2015; 08:00 GMT
Friedman concluded: “What else could Germany do? What else
could Greece do? The tragedy of geopolitical reality is that what will happen
has little to do with what statesmen wanted when they started out.” Friedman’s conclusion seems to
summarize quite succinctly what many of us have discussed in depth. Perhaps, the approved changes (see
above) will enable the Greeks to take a few steps back from the brink. We shall see.
I participated with several other contributors in an
extended thread of debate with respect to a couple of YouTube videos
constructed and delivered in the best Goebbels-esque propaganda diatribe form,
predicting the imminent demise of civilization after the Supreme Court’s ruling
in the case of Obergefell v. Hodges [576 U.S. ___ (2015)][706]. I have not yet
finished my review of Obergefell, so I will hold my
opinion on the Court’s decision, pending that review. Here, I chose to share one paragraph of my contribution to
the subject exchange.
The
issue is NOT same-sex marriage; that is simply the vehicle of convenience. The issue here is, freedom of choice
and equal protection under the law for ALL citizens . . . not just those who
conform to the dicta of the majority.
w]here
do we draw the line with respect to a citizen’s freedom of choice. The answer is, the line is NOT ours to
draw as long as an individual’s choices do not cause injury to another person,
damage another person’s property, or endanger public safety. The ugly thing about freedom . . .
everyone does not make choices of which we approve. Some of the choices of others are disgusting, disappointing,
confusing, offensive and otherwise contemptible. We have not, cannot and never will be able to enforce
morality . . . that is the domain of parental teaching, religion, and other
developers of what governs private choices in each individual soul.
News from the economic
front:
-- The PRC reported 7% GDP growth in 2Q2015. The Wall
Street Journal also reported that economists are beginning to question the
veracity of the PRC’s economic statistics and reporting given other negative indicators.
-- Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen said, "If the
economy evolves as we expect, economic conditions likely would make it
appropriate at some point this year to raise the federal funds rate target,
thereby beginning to normalize the stance of monetary policy."
Continuation from Update no.707:
[NOTE: What follows in this section is a personal exchange
between friends. I struggled with
the decision to include this exchange in a public forum, yet, at the end of the
day, this is reality and in that it may be helpful to other readers of this
humble forum.]
. . . Round three:
“Enough is enough. I will discuss facts and likely outcomes, but
reaching moral judgments based on the opinions of people not interested in
reality no longer interests me. Please unsubscribe me.”
. . . my response to round three:
I
am terribly sorry our intercourse struck you to this extent. You have been a prized and valuable
contributor to this humble forum for many years. I would truly hate to lose your insight and perspective. While we do not agree on many topics,
we respectfully argue our views.
Please reconsider. I trust
whatever compelled you to this separation will pass, and you will rejoin the
Update. We have shared many things
over the years.
. . . Round four:
“The value of contributing to this blog is that it's a public
discussion of issues and ideas. The drawback is that you refuse to seek out
facts to make a sound basis for that discussion. You ignore logic, formal or
otherwise, when it suits your ‘perspective’ to do so. (You have a college
education and a broad experience; I assume you know at least the basics of
logic.) I will not continue to argue from imagination or from sources who
prefer belief to knowledge as the basis for understanding.
“This does not mean I do not wish to continue our friendship.
Privately, we have a more rewarding discussion of ideas and experiences. I just
mean that I will not continue futile public discussions. I do not know whether
I am finding success with your audience or not. Most of them do not contribute
to the discussion, and some who do are either too specialized in their subjects
or simply too irrational to add to my understanding.”
. . . my response to round four:
The
temptation to reply at the personal level was difficult to resist, but I shall
endeavor mightily to do so. Since
we are doling out criticism in the spirit of Sir Winston’s wisdom, I shall
offer mine.
The
impression I am left with in this exchange is the bully’s pouting on not
getting his way. I trust my
impression is wrong, but that is what I am left with.
I
am but a humble and flawed man with limited capacity to absorb as much as he
can in the available time he possesses.
There is no question or doubt whatsoever that I am incapable of
gathering sufficient facts to satisfy everyone, anyone or even myself, but I do
the best I can. I form an opinion
based on the facts I am able to acquire and I remain steadfastly open and
receptive to anyone who can offer better information.
At
the end of the day, my opinion matters not a whit. I hold no position of authority or even influence. I have no access to sensitive
information. I command no legion
of troops or bodies beyond myself, and even that is questionable when Jeanne
decides to assert herself.
We
clearly have not and will not agree on many topics as your body of facts and
your perspective of those facts will inevitably be different, and perhaps even
radically different, from mine. Yet,
I have always presented your opinions in their full glory without editing or
abridgment, because I value your insight and unique view of issues . . .
because they are different from mine and offer a contrast for readers of this
Blog.
I
shall take your criticism in the spirit it was offered. I accept and acknowledge my feeble
limitations. I trust you will find
the courage to look beyond my foibles and find some modicum of worth in my
blatantly biased opinions.
Yes,
our private discussions have been enormously rewarding for me as well. I truly hope we have many more. Most readers of the Update choose not
to contribute for their personal reasons – perhaps, political correctness, or sensitivity
with respect to social intercourse, or maybe even indifference or laziness, I
do not know. However, I have
rarely had someone unsubscribe (disappear, yes).
Lastly,
I write this Blog for myself. . . not for compensation, not for kudos. My hope is that someone will respond
and disagree with me, so we can have some form of public debate on issues of
our time. I recognized and acknowledged
at the outset of this Blog that some of my opinions would be controversial,
upsetting, disgusting and even inducements to anger; that is the price I pay
for public words; but, public debate is just too bloody important for a viable
democracy and freedom. I was and
continue to be hopeful that readers will absorb, think and do what they will with
the information and opinions offered.
. . . Round five:
“Calling me a bully is as unjustified as it is irrelevant.
Claiming inability to understand the issues or do some level of research is
false modesty at its very worst, an excuse for your own unwillingness to
consider facts.”
. . . my response to round five:
“The
[gentleman] doth protest too much, methinks.”
I
specifically did not call you a bully.
I simply expressed how your words made me feel.
I
would respectfully suggest you back off the accusations. They are not worthy of your
intellect. There has never been an
unwillingness to learn on my part, only a finite limit to my capacity. In that fault, I freely accept culpability,
no accusations needed.
So,
let’s move on. The sensitivity is
making me tense.
Comments and contributions from Update no.708:
“Thought you might enjoy reading this article. I found it
beautifully articulated. Those Brits know English.”
"A Point of View: Why are opponents of gay marriage so sure
they're right?”
Anonymous
BBC
Published: 10 July 2015
My reply:
Interesting
article. Thx. Whomever wrote the essay is certainly
more articulate than me, and with equal certainty, I agree. Since the Civil Rights Act of 1964 [PL
88-352, 78 Stat. 241], it has been against the law to discriminate in public
facilities like stores, restaurants and transportation {Title III [78 Stat.
246]}. The fundamentalists and
strict constructionists have argued the CRA does not explicitly list sexual
orientation and/or gender identity as covered classes; therefore, it does not
apply. To me, such logic ignores the spirit of the law. They had a viable, although disturbing,
argument up to the Supremes’ ruling in Romer v. Evans [517 U.S. 620 (1996);
20.5.1996] and definitely by Lawrence v. Texas [539 U.S. 558
(2003); 26.6.2003], when the Court clearly established that non-heterosexual
citizens were covered under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment;
which in turn means CRA applies to non-heterosexual citizens. It will just take us a little longer to
achieve equal rights for all citizens.
I really like the last two (2) sentences. “Cults of certainty can only persecute or be persecuted. Communities of common doubt can always
co-exist.” Interesting
observation. Long journeys begin
with small steps. The journey
continues.
. . . follow-up comment:
“Yes, the last two sentences really are powerful.
“We just got back from the Galapagos Islands. Here are way more pictures than you want
to spend time looking at...”
[NOTE: The link directly above offers an extraordinary photo
essay worthy of the second survey voyage of HMS Beagle (27.12.1831 – 2.10.1836)]
Another contribution:
“The F-84 was interesting- I noted the paint scheme on bare metal
and figured it was from the 50’s. Then it came to me as I had read a number
of articles that discussed the plane. During the Cold War, a number of
NATO air forces employed the F-84 in various models, notably the Luftwaffe, and de Koninklijke
Luchtmacht (Netherlands) and the Luftforsvaret (RNoAF)- the latter too for a
longer time than the USAF used the plane. Even the Armée de l'Air
used the F-84 when France was integrated into NATO forces.”
My response:
The
F-84 did not see much success in the U.S.
Perhaps the international operators took advantage of discounted
prices. However you recognized the
museum display example, you did and that’s what counts.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
No comments:
Post a Comment