Update no.921

Update from the Sunland

No.921

2.9.19 – 8.9.19

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

            To all,

            The follow-up news items:

-- The situation in beleaguered Hong Kong [918] continues to confound.  On Tuesday, the PRC declared their inherent right to impose a state of emergency and presumably declare martial law.  The next day, Hong Kong Chief Executive Carrie Lam indicated she intends to withdraw the extradition law that sparked the protests and violence in the first place.  Whether that action will be sufficient to assuage the people of Hong Kong is yet to be observed. We can only hope peace and stability return to Hong Kong soon.

-- British MPs took direct action to thwart PM Johnson’s unilateral move [920] to suspend Parliament to allow him to act on his Brexit initiative [758].  The turmoil may well have precipitated new elections. In his unilateral move to resolve the Brexit situation, Johnson may well have created even more chaos and confusion.  This was a very BIC-ish thing to do, and I am encouraged the MPs found the means to stop him.

-- Several of the college admissions scandal criminals [897] are due to be sentenced next week.  As much as I laud Felicity Huffman’s courage to plead guilty to the charges against her, she deserves to have some jail time.  In contrast, Lori Loughlin chose to fight the charges, and as such, I hope she gets convicted and is sentenced to a long time in prison to think about her transgressions.

-- In the BIC’s long-running economic war with the PRC [802], the USG announced the U.S. and PRC plan to hold trade talks in Washington in early October, in the latest attempt to tame a trade war that is rippling through the global economy and hurting business investment and confidence.  We shall see.

            I watched and listened with keen interest to the extraordinary CNN Democratic Presidential Town Hall series on climate change held Wednesday night.  CNN help ten (10), 40-minute, town hall format segments with the top ten Democratic Party candidates in New York City.

            There are key elements of each candidate’s answers that deserve public debate.  However, trying to address each candidate’s responses proved to be beyond my capacity.  I am somewhat reticent to step to a broader assessment, but I am afraid that it is what I must do.

            Several broad impressions percolated to the top of my thoughts.  First, I note with solemn respect the extraordinary contrast between all ten candidates and the BIC.  Yes, I recognize that the BIC is a very low bar, but he is the presumed incumbent Republican candidate for the 2020 presidential election.  All of the Democratic candidates are articulate, informed, persuasive and most importantly respectful of each other—no cult of personality, no ad hominem attacks, no immature bully tactics, just good intellectual questions and answers. There is a potpourri of potential directions to choose from.  Every single one of the top Democratic candidate stood head and shoulders above the BIC.  What a delightful and refreshing change from what we have endured for the last 2½ years.  I eagerly await the presidential debates next year.  Second, there is no question—ZERO—that we must wean ourselves off of fossil fuels.  This is not a new opinion on my part, but I absolutely agree with the objective as voiced by all ten of the Democratic candidates.  We have an obligation to live in a more planet-friendly manner.  The times of our wasteful and foolish pollution must end as soon as possible.  The objective is correct.  Third, while there were some good suggestions related to how we pay for the Green New Deal, I am not satisfied that the cost and payments aspects of such an ambitious change are mature enough to garner my support.  I need to see more.  Fourth, For What It’s Worth (FWIW), I felt Elizabeth Warren and Pete Buttigeg came across the best, and Joe Biden the least.  All of the candidates were prepared and polished.  This one broad topic did not present all of the candidates equally, but gave us a good view.

            The military popped up throughout the evening, as a large consumer of fossil fuels.  One important, related fact came to mind.  A little known, unsung fact: decades ago, the Army took on a monumental change.  From a state of multiple fuels for different equipment (with the inherent logistics complications), the Army committed to and achieved the transition to a single fuel for every fuel-consuming item of equipment they utilize to accomplish their missions—aircraft, trucks, tanks, cranes, boats, light personnel vehicles, landing craft, railroad locomotives, everything (with only one exception [at the time], a field kitchen cooking stove; and, that may have been converted since the last time I had access to such information).  My point with this little factoid, the military may well be better prepared to transition away from fossil fuels altogether than many other segments of our society.

            Just when we thought things could not get more bizarre, we learn the BIC’s Justice Department has launched an antitrust investigation into four automakers who agreed to comply with California on more restrictive vehicle emissions standards.  The BIC seeks to stop the companies from producing vehicles to the more stringent emissions standards.  I’m sorry, but the best I can say is, WTF!

            Quietly, with little Press coverage, several state chapters of the Republican National Committee (RNC) have moved to eliminate primary elections in next years election season, so the presumed candidate will have no challengers.  Arizona, Kansas, and Nevada Republican committees have cancelled their primary elections next year, defaulting to the presumed Republican candidate—the BIC. Two other candidates have publicly announced they are running—Bill Weld and Joe Walsh.  A third potential candidate, Mark Sanford, has indicated interest but not yet announced.  While such actions are not without precedent, I will condemn such actions as disrespectful and anti-democratic.  I am not impressed.  To be blunt, this is another trait of dictators—eliminate the opposition—yet another reason to reject Republican candidates.  This is not how democracy should work.

            Comments and contributions from Update no.920:

Comment to the Blog:

“Merriam-Webster's word for the day (September 2) is ‘extemporize,’ meaning ‘to improvise.’  I don't know why they don't mention the Chump, whose every word and action are extemporized.

“We can include the Amazon fires in Chump's unforeseen consequences.  Most of those fires were set by people to clear land for soybean crops.  Due to the tariff war, China now buys soybeans from Brazil and other places rather than the U.S.  Brazilians see an opportunity there and their elected leader supports them.

“Boris Johnson endangers the UK, but he doesn't enjoy the same level of partisan support that Chump does.  The two are birds of a feather.

“I will leave Comey's part in recent history to other historians, at least for now.

“We shall see what China does about Hong Kong. My feelings and moral values are with the protesters.  We shall see how this plays out, keeping in mind that the Chinese premier has many other issues to deal with, including internal government struggles.

“Obama has far more style and a much more mature sensibility than the Chump.  All the same, I'm progressive enough to note that his results favored the oligarchs.

“With respect to the opioid disaster, I'll follow the money.  The producers made the most, but plenty flowed to the others you mentioned, except not to the users.  Some of the producers, distributors, clinics and their operators are having consequences, but the users and their loved ones continue to suffer.

“As far as the addicts, I'm addicted to alcohol and other things.  (Addiction is treatable, but not curable; I'm always addicted whether or not I'm using.)  None of this has to do with blaming anyone for anything.  It's a disease.  A doctor prescribed me what I believe was an opioid earlier in my recovery, and he swore up and down it was not addictive or subject to abuse.  Because my recovery was going strong, I immediately realized upon using the first dose that it was the most addictive thing I'd ever encountered.  That's a strong statement.  Based on that understanding, I stopped using it immediately and threw the entire prescription out of my car window as I drove.  It was a narrow escape.

“Also, blame in general is a pointless discussion.  We inject morality into a rational discussion at the peril of losing the ‘rational’ part.  You rail against one person or group imposing their morality on others.  So do I.

“If we address ‘high-risk individuals’ rather than the mentally ill, that will be far more effective than our current approach to mass shootings.  We may hope that ordinary deaths due to firearms, which take a much higher toll on Americans, will also be reduced.  Again, the Second Amendmentought to be considered in its entirety, with an awareness of its original context.”

My response to the Blog:

            I am sorry, I think you give the BIC more credit than he deserves.  “Improvisation” suggests conscious, rational thought.  His brain-farts are hardly rational; they seem demented and unhinged to me.

            I absolutely agree with your assessment of the Amazon fires in Brazil.  Well said, actually.  Our farmers will continue to bear the brunt of the BIC’s unilateral action.

            I am afraid we must wait to assess the consequences of PM Johnson’s unilateral action.  I see him and his performance thus far in the category of evil genius, but I suspect he may degenerate to the BIC’s category of ignorant buffoon.  Two birds . . . indeed!  Too many similarities!

            Comey . . . as you wish.

            Likewise; I stand with the protesters in Hong Kong. The PRC took the next step this morning, publicly stating its right to declare a state of emergency in the former crown colony, and presumably impose martial law.

            I cannot argue with your assessment of the opioid crisis.  However, I refuse to absolve the contribution of the consumers—demand drives it all.  I’m working on my outline for a new book to tell a story woven with threads of my views of a more humane public approach to addiction.  Prohibition has not and will never work.  Our generation has failed to learn the lesson of our parents’ generation—prohibition will never work as long as demand exists. Punishment has NOT quelled demand; even incarcerated prisoners have found their supply line.

            Fortunately, you were strong enough to recognize the reality of addictive substances.  My previous point is, I used powerful opioids in medical necessity; I used as instructed; I felt nothing I would equate to addiction or physical demand for more.  We no longer have easy access to previously available over-the-counter medicines because of the abusers.  I suspect we are headed toward prohibition of opioid pain meds because of the abusers.

            I have long felt and believed we were in agreement regarding the corrosive effects of moral projection.

            Oh my, yes, absolutely.  The issue with so much gun violence is not about the mentally ill.  There are many citizens struggling with myriad factors of mental illness. Very few mentally ill people resort to violence against others.  However, the smaller subset of “high-risk individuals” within the body of mentally ill should be the focus of our attention.  This latest one had multiple encounters with law enforcement related to violent and potentially violent behavior.  My understanding is, he was also flagged on the background check database and denied purchase of a firearm; and yet, he acquired the weapons he sought.  The system we have failed miserably, period, full stop; and innocent citizens died because of that failure.  He is a good example of why I believe we need a system of warranted searches of “high-risk individuals” like urine & blood tests for addicts.  At present, we have very little ability to intercede or intervene.

 . . . Round two:

“We're both quite intelligent and highly skilled with language, but I cannot adequately explain the reality of addiction to a person who's not addictive.  There are well-written books on the topic, but I doubt if they really do the job either.  My point in bringing up morality is that assigning blame wastes time in any discussion seeking either understanding or improvement of the human condition.  Blaming addicts for being addicts just doesn't do anything constructive.”

 . . . my response to round two:

            I recognize my deficiency in understanding addictive behavior.  My observations tell me there are different categories of addicts. For this discussion, I define addictive behavior as obsessive affinity to something (drugs, gambling, sex, alcohol, tobacco, ad infinitum) to the point of dependency affecting interpersonal relations.  To me, some addicts specifically seek the oblivion of their obsession.  Others want to break the cycle.  Some are successful in breaking the cycle.  One axiom from my deficient perspective, no one can help the addict until the individual recognizes their addiction and wants to break the cycle. No addict can be “cured,” but those who seek to break the cycle can be helped.  Those observations are the basis of my story.  Move away from punishment and prohibition to recognition of the realities of addiction.  Like prostitution, the primary objective should be public safety, eliminating the criminal sub-culture that causes the most destruction and threat to public safety, and helping the addict from achieving sobriety to serving the addiction with minimal threat to public safety.  I have no interest in the blame game; however, we must understand the root causes to devise a proper approach to treatment.  Any solution that does not deal with the addiction is destined to failure, e.g., punishment for addiction, rather than treatment.  Continuing to do what we’ve always done will yield only what we’ve always got; we must break the cycle.

 . . . Round three:

“Other than one point, you give a view remarkably close to my own. My only quarrel with this is the idea that those of us who are able to seek and use help are ‘others.’  Most of us that stay in recovery describe the moment that we finally become able to use help as our ‘miracle’ specifically because we are no different from users except that we have been granted that willingness.  Nobody that I know attributes that turning point to their own insight, intelligence, or will power.  I don't either.  Hence, it's a miracle.  We're still addicted, with all the traits that accompany that.  We're just not using.  Then the real work begins.”

 . . . my response to round three:

            I have heard that particular inflection point called by many names.  Miracle is certainly appropriate.  The term I am the most familiar with is “rock bottom,” i.e., that moment when the addict recognizes the illness and decides he must change.  I have seen successes and failures. Failures are often associated with imposed “cures” that have little to no chance of succeeding, except in the mind of the giver.  There is nothing anyone can do to help the addict until he reaches his inflection point.  By whatever means, there are addicts who reach that inflection point and take the necessary steps to achieve and maintain sobriety (here, I use the term in a broad general sense that applies to all forms of addiction).   These observations are the foundation of my approach to dealing with addiction (of any kind, but drugs are the most obvious).  One point is absolutely certain in my thinking—stop trying to impose our will on others.

            A more blunt, and perhaps brutal, aspect of my approach is assisting the addict in achieving their urges (demand) to avoid threats to public safety, i.e., eliminate the risks to society (recklessness, crime, et cetera), and supply the addict with their substance of choice in a safe environment to the fullest extent of the individual’s consumption up to and including death.

 . . . Round four:

“I did a search on "define inflection point" and got differential calculus. Nonetheless, I perceive from the context that you mean "turning point." Whatever we call it, it's a miracle to me.

“We have discussed your concept in the past. I'm not at all opposed to harm reduction, but I don't think your idea would save society or families from harm. I could explain that, but it would take rather more of a presentation than I have time or energy to provide today.”

 . . . my response to round four:

            Correct.  The simplistic definition is the point at which the local slope on a curve turns from negative to positive (or vice versa); seems like an appropriate descriptor.  Miracle works for me, as well.

            I have no doubt.  The selfishness of addiction causes considerable emotional and mental harm to families and those who care for the addict.  I cannot ignore that reality.  However, my primary focus is on public safety, e.g., crime carried out to feed the addiction.  If I chose to be hard & callous, I could say the immediate family, or extended family that influence the individual, are not innocent in the process, so that harm is secondary to public safety.  I know that is harsh, so no need to chastise me.

 . . . Round five:

“The ‘simplistic’ definition is still beyond me.

“Please study, not at depth unless you want that, the major symptoms of alcoholism and the ‘family" nature of the disease. I suspect you're in for some surprises.”

 . . . my response to round five:

            I make no claim to being an expert of anything, least of all addiction.  I am not an addict . . . well at least I am not aware of any obsessive behavior on my part, so I have no connection that way either.  I have had and still have addicts in my family.  I have observed first hand the consequences. I have sufficient experience with addiction to have an opinion.   That is all I offer.  Whether my opinion has any value is for others to judge.

 . . . Round six:

“I'll spare you the logic and the philosophizing, but your opinion is of more value if it's based on knowledge.”

 . . . my response to round six:

            I am not asking for or seeking mercy. Spare me by your choice alone. In this instance, could it be that my knowledge/experience does not agree with yours, thus your objection(s)? I believe you said previously that we predominantly agree, so I’m not sure what this dust-up is all about?

 . . . Round seven:

“I wasn't referring only to my individual experience. To draw a parallel, people who seek to understand airplane crashes need to know aerodynamics, metallurgy, meteorology, specific kinds of electronics, and at least a little psychology. They need experience in flying as well.  People who study addiction use their education and experience in various subjects related to addiction, to study addiction.  Why would we rely only on our own perception of our own experience in trying to understand addiction?  We have many other resources available.”

 . . . my response to round seven:

            Well said and agreed!  Unfortunately, I have limited excess capacity to carry out studious exploration, examination and analysis.  I will undoubtedly do more research as the outline phase progresses and the writing phase begins.  I do the best I can with the capacity I have.

 . . . Round eight:

“I recognize ‘lack of excess capacity to carry out studious exploration, examination, and analysis.’ That's why I included ‘not in-depth unless you want that’ in my earlier comment.  The most basic level of knowledge is preferable to ignorance.”

 . . . my response to round eight:

            Understood.  Agreed.  And, spot on!

Another contribution:

“President Obama is not a good man ..”

My response:

            We shall respectfully disagree.  You are entitled to believe what you wish to believe for whatever reasons you choose.  Obama is a far better human being than the BIC, full stop.

A different contribution:

“However we still have our ‘competent’ politicians badgering away with the damned Brexit scheme.  Will we leave without a deal?  Well most of the people we know are fed up with the continuing incompetence of our ‘leaders’ on both sides of the house.

“I expect you are as up to speed with our leaders plans so I won’t drag out their inability to show the leadership the country needs right now.  Well, the next couple of weeks will be of great interest as we soldier on without a government in the house.  A word I was not familiar with has reached our ears, ‘proroguing’ is the word, you may need to look it up as I did.

“‘Never in the field of human conflict’.  My God, we need another Churchill on the job.

“Cap, did watch a fascinating programme on our channel 5 last night about WW2 right up to the end with Hitler’s suicide.  Some considerable time was spent on D-day with much mention of the American ship builder ‘Higgins Industries’ who constructed dozens of landers for the Normandy landings.”

My reply:

            I can certainly empathize with your frustration with your politicians.  Many of us have exactly the same annoyance with our version of politicians in the colonies.  They are far more interested in their own welfare than the business of the nation.

            It is difficult to imagine the difficulties and complexities of a no deal Brexit.  Logically, an orderly, negotiated Brexit would be far better than the potential chaos of a no deal event.  I understand that Brexit is not a simple process, but suspending democratic processes to make the course of action easier seems like a far more serious and impactful endeavor to me.

            I have not heard the term “proroguing” until you informed me.  Now, I do: prorogue ≡ discontinue a session of a legislative assembly without dissolving it.  So much for the equal branches of government.  As Sir Winston observed: “Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe.  No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise.  Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other formsthat have been tried from time to time.”

            Yes indeedie!  We both need another Churchill.  He was not flawless, but he was most emphatically the man of his time.

            Yeah, Andrew Higgins and the company he founded built more than 23,000 landing craft the military identified as Landing Craft, Vehicle, Personnel (LCVP) or Higgins boats for both European and Pacific Theaters.  Very impressive industrial effort, I must say.  I’ve ridden in a few of those boats in my day.

 . . . follow-up comment:

“I suppose the nicest way of summing up British politics at the moment is to call it a‘democratic turmoil’.  Or am I being just too kind?  Us, the British people are utterly ‘fed up’ to the back teeth with our politicians who give the impression, whether intentional or not, that they don’t really care for what we (not I) voted for, that is to leave Europe.  Of course it hasn’t been a sensible or simple ‘divorce’ as divorces can be. The most controversial point being do we leave without an agreement?  The diehards say yes, let’s go on the next bus, the others claim it will be a complete calamity to the nation’s financial state including the regular supply of food and medical imports.

“Well Mr Johnson has tried to be strong and dictate to the politicians a scheme that will take us away with or without an agreement by the end of October.  It hasn’t worked-he has lost three motions in the house and currently we flounder on. We’ve discussed this before Cap, we have agreed that in these situations we always we need strong leadership, but not a dictatorship. An experienced politician stated this morning when asked ‘Is this democracy at work’?  His reply was, not surprisingly, ‘Yes of course’ and of course we can’t argue with that.  I suppose we could ask ‘when does democracy stop being democracy?  I’ll leave that to you my learned friend.

“I’ll get off the subject now Cap- before it blows your mind as well!”

 . . . my follow-up reply:

            Thank you for your assessment.  To be blunt, I was shocked that PM Johnson took the action he did—a very BIC-ish thing to do.  After the shock, I was encouraged that MPs took aggressive steps to thwart the PM in his action to suspend democracy.

            I remember the public debates 25 years ago, when Her Majesty’s Government chose not to fully embrace integration with the EU.  Imagine how much more difficult and complicated Brexit would be if the United Kingdom had fully integrated?  I cannot and do not claim to understand or appreciate all of the complexity of Brexit, but the people have spoken (well, at least the citizens who chose to vote).  The die is cast.  The “no deal” Brexit the PM is advocating for seems very myopic at best.  Yet, now, any action is better than the chaos and instability of inaction.

            Great question: “when does democracy stop being democracy?”  In simplistic terms, I would say, when we stop listening to each other. Viable democracy depends upon vigorous debate, disagreement, and respect for those who do not agree with us. Democracy is hinged upon compromise.  All the forms of democratic governance are built upon disagreement and systems to induce negotiated solutions to contemporary problems.  When you have one person imposing his will on We, the People, you have dictatorship.  When you have a small minority imposing its will on We, the People, you have autocracy (in many forms, including theocracy).  Democracy depends upon freedom of speech, freedom of choice, freedom of the Press, and myriad protections of the citizenry against the oppression of a minority or of the State.

            I have faith (perhaps naïve) in the resiliency of democracy.  The trials and travails we are currently immersed in will pass. The necessary corrections will take place.  The only question in my mind is when?

 . . . Round three:

“However thanks for your reply- the situation here is no better, probably worse. The ‘rebel’ MPs are looking to introduce a law to prevent the PM from taking us out of the EU without a deal-we now read that our ‘passionate’ leader has stated he will defy the law should they be successful! My God, what a diabolical shambles. I guess future students will study this example of ‘democracy’. Oh, by the way thanks for your views on good and poor democracy.”

 . . . my reply to round three:

            It seems we both suffer dysfunctional governments.  I cannot claim either of us has a leader.  We have individuals in positions of power, but neither are leaders. Where is our Sir Winston, or even an FDR?  Yes, future students of democracy will surely study this period as a negative example.

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

Cheers,

Cap                        :-)