Update no.836

Update from the Sunland

No.836

1.1.18 – 7.1.18

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

            To all,

            The New Year has started out with a bang.  We were treated to the not particularly noteworthy annual New Year’s address of DPRK dictator Kim Jong Un.  There is disagreement between his spoken words and the official DPRK text.  The spoken word proved to be a catalyst, so I shall use those words.  He said (among other things):

“The U.S. should know that the button for nuclear weapons is on my table.  The entire area of the U.S. mainland is within our nuclear strike range. ... The United States can never start a war against me and our country.”

I would have ignored the drivel from the third generation DPRK dictator if that had been the end of it.  Unfortunately, in these interesting times in which we live, the fellow in the Oval Office could not resist his more base impulses.  He Tweeted the next day:

“North Korean Leader Kim Jong Un just stated that the ‘Nuclear Button is on his desk at all times.’  Will someone from his depleted and food starved regime please inform him that I too have a Nuclear Button, but it is a much bigger & more powerful one than his, and my Button works!”

Where do I begin?  The DPRK dictator has set the bar very low for civil conduct on the public and international stage.  As a proud American citizen, I am truly embarrassed to acknowledge that the President of the United States of America has plunged decidedly below even that low bar.  My button is bigger than your button . . . really!  Have we mysteriously and collectively regressed to the 3^rd grade?

            So, this is going to be fun . . . in the wake of such sadness . . . I eagerly await the impassioned defense of all those Trump-sters out there.  As Sir Winston so eloquently stated, “Let it roll on full flood”—not the same context but appropriate meaning.  Please, I urge you, rationalize this one!

            And, as if that was not enough, later in the week after the furor over his tweet noted above came to full boil, he felt compelled to publicly declare:

“I think that would qualify as not smart, but genius . . . and a very stable genius at that!”

Once again, if you have to tell people you are a genius, you are NOT!  And, he and his loyal followers wonder why so many citizens question his mental stability.

            International commercial aviation operators and manufacturers achieved an extraordinary accomplishment in 2017—not a single fatality.  Aircraft have been carrying passengers for hire over 100 years (plus or minus a few years).  Accidents and fatalities have been a reality of commercial air travel over all those years.  History is somewhat ambiguous regarding the first commercial passenger flight.  However, to my knowledge, the first recorded paying customer flight occurred on 1.January.1914, when the St. Petersburg-Tampa Airboat Line became the world's first scheduled passenger airline service, operating between St. Petersburg and Tampa, Florida.  The historic note records that Pilot Tony Jannus flew former St. Petersburg mayor Abram C. Pheil on a 23-minute flight across Tampa Bay.  The first known commercial aircraft crash occurred on 14.December.1920, when a British Handley-Page HP-16 biplane crashed just after takeoff on a scheduled passenger flight from London to Paris, killing four of the eight people onboard.  Given the millions of passengers carried last year on hundreds of thousands of flights around the world, this is an extraordinary achievement.  This milestone is a collective tribute to the relentless efforts of manufacturers to improve their aircraft, of operators to train and maintain the skills of their crews, and of regulators for their steadfast insistence upon compliance with aviation safety requirements.  Hopefully, this is the first of many years of exemplary safety for the flying passengers.

            The 15^th annual Rhythm and Vines New Year's celebratory festival was held at the Waiohika Estate, in Gisborne, New Zealand, on 28/31.December.2017.  The festival featured music and entertainment performers similar to other camp-in festivals like Woodstock, Burning Man and such.  What is notable during this celebration was not what occurred on stage, rather what happened in the audience.  An American-born woman by the name of Madeline Anello-Kitzmiller, 20, was walking through the audience with her friend Kiri-Ann Hatfield.  A man snuck up behind her, grabbed her right breast and ran.  Madeline and Kiri calmly turned around walked purposefully back to where the man seated himself among a small group of men.  She waded into the seated men and pummeled her assailant about the head and shoulders.  What is unique about the video clip is Madeline chose to dress in a short skirt with no top covering her ample breasts.  The Press reported that her breasts were covered with glitter, but that is not obvious in the video.  I could not find any definitive indication that she reported the assault on her body to the local constabulary or sought prosecution.

            This incident amplifies my long-term contention that a woman’s choice of attire is never and can never be an acceptable or justifiable excuse or motivation for assault on another human being.  Whether it was legal or not for Madeline to be in public topless in New Zealand, or more specifically in Gisborne, is irrelevant.  No one has any right to do what that man did.  Such felonious conduct should be prosecuted and punished, not just slapped around a little.  I point to incidents like this as prime examples of why we must support, suffer and endure the “Me Too” movement to expose and brightly illuminate that NO MAN (no matter how self-important he thinks he is) has a right “Grab [a woman] by the pussy. You can do anything.” . . . as our illustrious fellow in the Oval Office, declared.  Sadly, the attitude expressed by that fellow in the Oval Office is all too prevalent, i.e., he is not alone in his misogyny.  Then, perhaps even worse and more disappointing, Representative Marcia Carolyn ‘Marcy’ Kaptur of Ohio stood before her colleagues and declared that “too many members dress inappropriately” and such dress is “an invitation” to be harassed.  We must bleed our culture of this archaic attitude that women invite assaults on their bodies by the provocativeness or seductiveness of their attire.

            I am also an absolute, staunch supporter of equal rights; thus, if it is acceptable for a man to be topless in public, then by definition it is acceptable for a woman to be topless.  Every society has a right, responsibility and obligation to define acceptable public conduct.  However, such public conduct regulation must be devoid of any bias due to any one or combination of the social factors—gender is just one of those factors; sexual orientation is another.  There is NEVER an “invitation” to be sexually assaulted or harassed, period, full stop!  Exposed cleavage, a bare thigh, or completely naked and unconscious . . . there is no justification (no invitation) for assault.  And, no man, regardless of who he is or how powerful he thinks he is, has any right to grab the genitalia of anyone.  This Neanderthal misogyny must be eradicated from our society.  Such conduct must be confronted and dealt with harshly whenever and wherever it is encountered.

            Attorney General ‘Jeff’ Sessions issued a departmental policy letter rescinding the Obama administration Justice Department policy of taking a largely hands-off approach to the marijuana industry in various states.  The decision came mere days after California became the latest state to legalize recreational use of Cannabis; the state is one of 25 states and the District of Columbia permitting the sale of Cannabis or its derivatives for medicinal or recreational use.  Eight states now allow recreational use, while the remainder permit medicinal use only.

            The moral projectionists have been after Cannabis usage for any reason for a long time.  Federal attempts to control Cannabis usage date back to 1914 {Harrison Narcotics Tax Act [PL 63-III-223; 38 Stat. 785; 17.12.1914]} and 1937 {Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 [PL 75-238; 50 Stat. 551; 2.8.1937]}.  The federales tried to curtail usage by taxation with marginal, if any, success.  The real meat in federal prosecution of Cannabis trade and use came with the Controlled Substances Act (AKA CSA) [84 Stat. 1242] {actually, Title II of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 [PL 91-513; 84 Stat. 1236; 27.10.1970] that made Cannabis a Schedule I substance, comparable to heroin and LSD.

            Senators Cory Scott Gardner of Colorado and Kamala Devi Harris of California publicly protested Sessions’ action and vowed resistance against the administration.  What is particularly significant in this aspect is Gardner’s political affiliation—he is one of the narrow Republican majority.

            What I found really rich was a Wall Street Journal editorial that boldly concluded:

“Social mores are changing, and a majority of Americans support legalizing pot.  But instead of taking the cop-out of blaming Mr. Sessions, legalizers in Congress ought to have the courage of their convictions and try to decriminalize pot nationwide.  Let Senators Cory Gardner and Kamala Harris persuade their colleagues that what’s good for Colorado and California is good for the country.”

That sorta outrage, challenge and indignation would have been quite appropriate in 1970, when Congress was considering the CSA in the first place.  It seems moral projection is quite acceptable as long as it imposes restrictions the power elite, quasi-royalty in this Grand Republic agree with it.  I contend moral projection is wrong no matter how it cuts.  The federal government has absolutely no business intruding into the private affairs of individual citizens.  That said, what I found quite obnoxious in the sentiment expressed by the WSJ editorial was the implication that is quite alright for the federal government to imposed its morality on all states and all citizens, as long as they agree with it.  I say: where is the profound wisdom of Associate Justice Louis Dembitz Brandeis in his dissenting opinion to New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann [285 U.S. 262 (1932)]:

“To stay experimentation in things social and economic is a grave responsibility.  Denial of the right to experiment may be fraught with serious consequences to the nation.  It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.” (emphasis by Cap)

I do understand and appreciate the conservative notion of enforcing the law—no matter how bad, wrong, malicious or ill-advised.  However, the previous administration chose to allow the experimental laboratories of the states.  A far better approach opposed to the Sessions unilateral dicta would have been a proposed repeal law for Congress to consider.  Sessions’ action intentionally seeks to stifle experimentation by the states, not to amend the law—that is only an excuse.

            Lastly, I would be remiss with this particular topic if I did not state: the gateway drug argument is as bogus, false and misleading as any one of the myriad of Tweets from the fellow in the Oval Office.  I do not deny that Cannabis intoxication does lead some individuals to seek more pronounced “highs” of more powerful drugs.  However, I think many of us, if not most of us, know individuals who have used Cannabis for many years and never sought other drugs.  Let us get real and stop punishing everyone for the failures of a few.  Intoxication by any substance (tobacco, alcohol, marijuana, or more powerful) is a matter of personal freedom of choice.  We must remove government (federal, state or local) from our private affairs and refocus governmental efforts to the public domain.

            Shocking . . . I tell you!  The Wall Street Journal reported that Jana Partners LLC and the California State Teachers' Retirement System (Calstrs) sent a joint letter to Apple, Inc., saying the company needs to respond to what some see as a growing public-health crisis of youth phone addiction.  The activists urge the company to develop new software tools that would help parents control and limit phone use more easily, and to study the impact of overuse on mental health.  Between Jana and Calstrs, they control US$2B of Apple shares; they carry a voice the rest of us do not enjoy.

            Prima facie, the suggestion seems reasonable.  If there is a need, there are myriad application developers to address the need.  What is not stated and appears to be implied by the letter is the activists are looking for hardware changes, not just software, i.e., altering the iPhone for all users, not just those who wish to pay for them.  At a deeper level, I ask, where are the parents?  Why should anyone spend any capacity to do what a parent should be doing?  If parents do not like how smartphones are affecting their children, remove them or control access.  Children do not have any right to have a smartphone.  To me, this is yet another form of moral projection.  Jana and Calstrs point to Apple rather than to parents.  As a shareholder, I urge Apple to thank Jana and Calstrs for their interest in Apple’s products, and refer the challenge to application developers.

            Comments and contributions from Update no.835:

Comment to the Blog:

“I agree with you and Mr. Taub that we are experiencing decadence, rot in your better term, and also that Trump is, merely a symptom.  I disagree with both of you on the cause and details of this, though.  Part A of my disagreement is that neither of you pays enough attention to history.  This trend or tendency in our government clearly dates back to the Reagan election.  That election was influenced by the Iran-Contra Affair, which served the specific purpose of defeating Jimmy Carter's re-election.  That's also when these greedy and hurtful attitudes re-surfaced, in trickle-down economics and in Reagan's attitudes toward immigrants and other vulnerable groups.  Reagan portrayed a far nicer personality, and remember he was an actor.  His presentation carried the same marketing messages as Trump's, but in a far more acceptable tone.  I have a degree in Communication (BS), and I believe the actions, not the personality.  His policies point directly to those of the current Congress, other than the Russia issue. 

“I do not agree about the responsibility resting with We the People, either.  We the People have not changed.  I have encountered those same harmful attitudes since early childhood, in a minority of people who only spoke them when they felt they were among like-minded people.  They were common in the specific place I grew up, but I doubt they are more common there or nationally now.  If anything, some of those people have grown out of those ideas.  The hateful people have more outlets, but so do the decent majority.  The fact that decent people have not voted for either major-party candidate merely reflects the fact that neither major-party candidate represented decent people.  Let’s not play the Democrat National Committee’s blame game here.

“The key here is what you underlined in the Obama interview.  ‘I think people get invested in the old ways of doing things because in part that is where their power has come from.’  Not in part, completely.  At least from Reagan forward, Presidents and Congresses, including nearly all Democrats, are or were in power because of corporate and wealthy donors.  Responsibility for the rotting of our nation rests with the politicians, their owners, and the Supreme Court.

“The U.S. has been here before.  From the building of transcontinental railroads until the Great Depression, the same economic ideas and very similar hatred were used to maintain the control of the United States by the very wealthy.  (Remember learning about “waving the bloody shirt”?  The Cleveland and Harding administrations?)  Foreign policies were somewhat different on their face, because more other powers competed with us.  Teddy Roosevelt and Fighting Bob LaFollette made a little headway against the trusts of their time, but the power of wealth didn't crash until Black Friday, the result of uncontrolled greed.  I don’t know where this will end.

“President Obama said great and appropriate things in that interview.  He is no longer in office, and I doubt the Democratic Party will live up to his statements.”

My response to the Blog:

            I offer my humblest apologies to you (and potentially other readers of the Blog) for my sin of omission.  I was more focused on Traub’s attribution rather than his title statement.  Actually, I do not agree with the title statement—the United States is decadent and depraved.  Further, I could and will argue the societal problems we have are perpetual, more an artifact of an open, vibrant and diverse culture.  Freedom of choice has been a corner stone of this Grand Republic from times before the Declaration.  I can cite accusations of decadence in this country dating back to at least 1826.  I see decadence and depravity as emotional terms predominantly in the mind of the accuser.  To a serious, social conservative citizen, any exposed skin on a female or sex other than between heterosexual, married, for procreation only adults is depraved.  I do NOT share Traub’s entry hypothesis.

            Your observation that neither Traub nor I paid sufficient attention to history is quite a statement; however, I shall not argue with your observation.

            I would agree that the source of much of the cultural intransigence we face today rests upon Congress, dating at least to Gingrich’s Contract with America (1994).  It has been back & forth ever since.  To reiterate, it is We, the People, who elect Congress, i.e., we create and reinforce the political party parochialism by those we elect.  Thus, my placement of the root cause blame on We, the People.  Corporations don’t vote and our monied royalty have limited votes.  We, the People, vote for people susceptible to corruption and being compromised by the monied royalty.  There have always been bad people In our society . . . in every society in perpetuity.  I stand by my premise.  Thus, I cannot agree that corporations and wealthy donors are to blame.  If we succumb to the propaganda they spew out, then are we not still to blame for believing their drivel?

            One day, hopefully in my remaining lifetime, We, the People, will decide to end the corruption of money, or at least seriously diminish its corrupting influence.  I know that is a very tall order especially in the wake of Citizens United [558 U.S. 310 (2010)], but we can do it, if we set our collective minds to it.  We overcame prohibition, slavery and other ills; we can do it.

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

Cheers,

Cap                        :-)