Public Relations

1. Local, Local, Local
     Indianapolis had its very own electric power utility for decades, and people liked Indianapolis Power & Light.  Rates were low; while the other large utilities in the state served mostly rural customers, IPL's customer base was the dense Indianapolis metro, and they leveraged efficiencies of scale and Hoosier frugality to deliver reliable power at low rates.  They put one of the city's first radio stations on the air, and followed it up in the late 1950s with the first or second commercial TV station*

     By 1957, IPL was out of the broadcasting business -- and very firmly in the Power & Light business.  They made money for their investors and kept on delivering power to customers at some of the lowest rates in the state, while maintaining and expanding their generating stations.  In 2000 or 2001 (sources differ), international power giant AES bought IPL, and in 2021, they retired the IPL branding in favor of their own name.

     Now AES itself is being snapped up by "a consortium led by BlackRock subsidiary Global Infrastructure Partners and Swedish private equity firm EQT AB [...] for a total enterprise value of $33.7 billion [...]."

     AES has never been quite as well-liked as IPL; rates have gone up and reliability is not quite what it was, at least in part thanks to a growing population and aging infrastructure.  The sale to the consortium is even less popular; recent announcement of public open houses resulted in what are being described as "credible threats" on social media.  Events were rescheduled, and have now been postponed indefinitely.  The goodwill IPL built by being the all but invisible, affordable suppliers of wall-socket juice is gone, just when the company most needs it.  And the state regulator is feeling the heat.

2. National and International
     Meanwhile, I'm hearing an old familiar tune: "Now the President has finally gone too far!  His supporters will turn on him!"

     Gasoline prices are skyrocketing,and stocks are tumbling as I write this, and the surprise-war against Iran is leaving the usual piles of dead and injured in its wake.  I still wouldn't get too excited about the prospects for a man whose public image has already survived a bungled pandemic response, an attempted and ugly coup, two impeachments, felony convictions, civil sexual assault conviction, an unpopularly harsh ramp-up of immigration enforcement and a sprawling sex-crimes scandal, not to mention his own rambling and semi-coherent speechmaking.  While he's shed supporters here and there, the people who love President Trump really, really love him, and by now they have years of practice rationalizing away any negative.  If the economy tanks hard, Donald Trump may yet succeed in Hoovering himself off the national stage just like Herbert did, but A) I would not count on it and B) a hard crash is a lousy thing to wish on your fellow citizens.

     Unlike nearly all of his predecessors, this President can't be steered much by public opinion, especially in this second term, and to the extent that he is, it's by crowd reaction at his events, which are not a balanced cross-section of the American electorate.  I don't know how we and our country are getting out of this -- if we manage to get out at all -- but expecting a miracle is a recipe for disappointment.
____________________
* Supporters of competing WTTV and WRTV (then WFBM) claims to be first are still duking it out -- in May, 1949 IPL's WFBM was inarguably on the air first, but their transmitter promptly failed, and they were still repairing it that November, when WTTV came on and stayed on.  But the joke's on them: in 1944, experimental W9XMT was the first TV station on the air in town, and the Wm. H. Block Co. department store received a license for WWHB in 1947 and got as far as transmitting test patterns before deciding the television business was too iffy for them.

Ugh

     A nasty headache has had hold of me all day, from a morning of wordless, sensation-based nightmares to an afternoon of slogging though basic chores.

     I blame research, or maybe the time change.

     Also, could governments maybe not site their nuclear-weapons research efforts in cities full of historical architecture?  That'd be nicer for everyone.  Even the the U.S. and the USSR mostly figured that out, and they could barely agree on what was for lunch.  Also, you know, cities, kinda full of people who weren't in on the plan and probably wouldn't have agreed to it if asked....

What's With Iran?

      Wander around social media in recent days and you'll probably trip over someone reminding that "we created the mess in Iran."  It's almost true, too -- but it's not the whole story.

     I guess I could remind you, "War is not healthy for children and other living things,"* like the brilliant Lorraine Schneider, gone too soon, but if you haven't noticed that by now, you haven't been paying attention.

     So how did that part of the world end up where it is at this moment in history?  Some of the blame lies with Kermit Roosevelt, Jr., grandson of no less a figure than Theodore, who masterminded the events that brought the Shah to the fore in 1953.

     But here's the catch: the Shah of Iran, the guy they threw out in 1979, was already the Shah by that time, and had been since 1941, when his father was forced to abdicate.  After WW II, he tried to modernize by convening the country's 1906-created elected legislature for the first time -- and stacking the deck by appointing senators who were aligned with his power.  Subsequent elections undermined this convenient arrangement, leading to the opposition party winning a majority and triggering the oil nationalization crisis that spurred Western intervention.

     And that Shah's father?  Here's where it gets even weirder, because Reza Khan (later Reza Shah) was not, in fact, the scion of some ancient Middle Eastern ruling family.  He was almost Just Some Guy, who ended up in the messy ending of WW I and the ongoing Russian Revolution and civil war that followed it as a soldier, an officer, fighting the Soviet Union, sometimes with the British.  And in 1921, the British helped in the coup that collapsed the Soviet-dominated Persian government under Amad Shah Qajar, who was at that time, yes, you guessed it, the Shah of Iran (no relation); and his was the long-established ruling line, or as close as it gets in that part of the world.  For the new government, Reza Khan was Minister of War.  In 1923, he stepped up to Prime Minister and by 1925, he'd convinced the rest of the government to depose the Shah.

     That left a vacancy at the top, and, ahem, one man was ready to...is "serve" the right word for an autocrat?  His peers voted him in.

     That's how Reza Khan became Reza Shah Pahlavi, and how his son, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, became next in line for the throne he'd later be kicked out of.

     We can't blame the CIA for all of it.  We can't blame the Brits for more than their share, or the USSR, or the various Iranian governments or even, I suppose, lay it entirely at the feet of Reza Khan.  But it was a world-class mess long before the the first Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini grabbed the top spot in 1979 -- and one of his political motivations was that he blamed Reza Shah for the murder of his father, when he was two years old.

     I have simplified some things, and skipped steps; the details of what happened and who was trying to accomplish what at which time are tangled at best; there are few unbiased histories or first-hand accounts. This is history so thick you can stack it up like mud bricks.  This is history plastered with warning signs.
_____________________
* I have distinct memories of a counterfeit postage stamp with this image on it somehow passing muster in the U. S. mail and making the news afterward in the late 1960s or early 70s, but I can't find any mention of it online.

Noem Out, Mullin In

      Does it make a difference?  There are questions about what DHS Secretary Kristi Noem was spending her department's money on, especially the fat stack of cash resulting from the giant omnibus bill Congress passed, but both she and current U. S. Senator/possible new Secretary Markwayne Mullin are pretty much in lockstep with the rest of the Trump Administration on immigration and other issues.  If he avoids making a new series of TV commercials with himself as the star in the public's dime, and maybe sells off a luxury jet or two, I'll count it as a slight gain.

     The Senate will be short one Republican until Oklahoma's Governor appoints a replacement (and despite his recent showing of independent spirit, you can count on the new one being a Republican, too) -- but the slim GOP majority in that body already falls well short of the 60 votes needed to steamroller Democratic opposition.

     "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss," except, presumably, for his taste in shoes.  I've have never been terribly impressed with Senator Mullin's verbal abilities.  He comes off looking a bit light on intellectual horsepower, but the job calls for administrative ability and we'll see how he does.  He likes to present himself as a brawler, which often doesn't augur well in a leadership job.

     I'm not a fan of deporting otherwise law-abiding wage earners who pay taxes just like the rest of us; it seems to me that if you could ease 'em into citizenship, it would count as a win.  But present policies are not going to change, despite the new name at the top.

When Is A War A War?

     The Washington, DC press corps keep asking about the conflict with Iran: "Is it a war?"  Trump administration officials keep responding, too; you can't fault them for lack of answers.  But apparently, it depends on who you ask and how they're feeling.  It's certainly not a war per the U. S. Constitution, which requires Congress to pull that lever.  Secretary of State, National Security Advisor, Archivist of the United States, former Director of USAID and General Factorum Marco Rubio (he's a Cabinet working group all by himself) has called it a war, told reporters it's not a war and then explained, "They declared war on us," which is what you can expect from even a grotty little theocracy nobody likes after a wave of aerial attacks has knocked out a lot of their military and killed their Supreme Leader and most of his backup singers, along with an unknown number of civilians.

     War or not, it's leaving the usual piles of bodies and burning through munitions and materiel at an appalling rate, faster than the Iranians can make more but also faster than the United States can.  Word is the Iranian government is picking a new Supreme Leader,* and word from the Israeli military is they plan to blow him up, along with any successors.  The problem with that is, they'll run out of guys to do the surrendering, which neatly mirrors the Swiss plan for self-defense, but in a part of the world with a lot more practice in chaotic amateur armed conflict.

     I don't know if that would be a war, either.  And the dead aren't expressing an opinion.

     War, as Marine Major General Smedley Butler famously observed, is a racket, and we'll find out what's making noise by and by.  War excuses all manner of abuses on the home front, too.  I wonder what they'll be? 
__________________
* No matter how many times I type it, it looks like a title from a comedic opera, or maybe a brand of cigars.  But it's no joke.

Yes, You're Right

     I'd like to apologize to everyone who told me that if I voted for Kamala Harris, the United States would get in yet another war in the Middle East.

     I did, and now here we are, at war in the Middle East.  You were right.

An Umbrella Won't Help

     There are credible reports of high-ranking U. S. officers describing the current situation in the Middle East,* including U. S. involvement, in terms that are, how to put it, distinctly not military.

     Nope, they've been speaking of it in religious terms, and I don't mean the Sermon on the Mount.  I take offense at this -- not at their belief, but at applying it to their jobs in that way.  Even if they were right -- and I don't have an inside line, or any certainty that anyone else does -- it's not their job.  It's not the job of their troops.  Mere humans don't get to put a thumb on those scales, one way or another, and our secular Constitutional republic is not in the "Holy War" business.  Shut up and soldier. 

     As a general reminder, various preachers in the West have been talking up Armageddon any time war flares in the Middle East since at least World War One and the upshot has always been that the war came and went and their coffers were all the richer, every time -- but the sky never did split, and the official word is still, "No man knows the hour."  You can look it up for yourself, which I think was one of the points of the Protestant Reformation.
__________________
* Various news organizations are nudging journalists that "Ayatollah" is not a political office but a religious title and there are plenty of them; the late Ali Kamenei's political title was "Supreme Leader."  The same memos point out that what's going on right now does not count as a U. S. war unless Congress declares it, which must be a huge comfort to the dead of this and the many other undeclared conflicts we've waged. 

Reefer Alliance

     Sometimes, the Fates serve something up that's so on the nose, you know the fix is in.  Case (literally) in point, United States v. Hemani, now before the U. S. Supreme Court.

     Uncle Sam says Ali Danial Hemani is a pot-swilling terrorist supporter, who shouldn't be allowed to own guns on account of being an habitual drug user, since, as question 21.f. on the BATFE Form 4473 quaintly asks and warns, "Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance? Warning: The use or possession of marijuana remains unlawful under Federal law regardless of whether it has been legalized or decriminalized for medicinal or recreational purposes in the state where you reside."  It's right there in plain text:* even pot use is a downcheck, and the buyer will not, in fact, be purchasing a firearm that day if the answer "Yes."

     On the other side, the defense says he's an almost stereotypical Texas gun owner, a pillar of his community, active in religious organizations and youth sports, who just happens to enjoy a little herb from time to time.

     I have no idea if either of these description is anywhere close to reality.  I never met him and I haven't been following the case.  What I do know is that we've got the Feds on one side, and on the other, everyone from the NRA to NORML, from the ACLU to Gun Owners of America is weighing in or even filing Friend of the Court Briefs.

     It's one to watch, and in the meantime, always ask, "Who brought these brownies?" before digging in.
________________________
* Of course, the current version of the same form still gives you three choices for the answer to question 14, Sex: Male, Female or Non-Binary.  Presumably anyone who ticks the third box vanishes from Federal sight immediately, since the Federal government only recognize the first two options now, and the sale is denied on account of there not being anyone buying.  And they were just right there...!

Did My Taxes

     I decided I had better do my taxes before the last minute.  I knew it was going to be painful, since I started receiving Social Security early last year -- but hey, they're not taxing that, right?

     Wrong.  There's a $6000 income deduction for old people like me, but it starts getting pro-rated down once your total income exceeds a certain threshold, and mine had.  They took every dime I paid in Federal income taxes and wanted in excess of $4000 more.

     This is the kind of thing that is easier to take if you have been preparing for it, and I had -- but it's more than I expected.  Nevertheless, I paid it, and what the heck, I always did like like beans and rice for dinner.  But the man who tries to hector me about the worker's paradise the GOP is building had better be able to duck. 

Yah, Yah, Yah

     So I guess we blew up the Ayatollah, or maybe the Israelis did -- of course, he was like 86 and they were shopping for a new one already, and while many of the people of Iran may be delighted he's gone, his replacement is likely to be more of the same, or worse.

     Bear in mind that the West bears most of the responsibility for the hostile, inward-looking nature of the Iranian government: we'd stuck the Shah in place after U. S. and British oil interests had freaked out when the country shambled itself into a left-leaning government in the 1950s that nationalized their oil businesses.  The Shah dug in like a tick on an elephant and began to live large on oil money, with his very own secret police doing secret police things, and the same Iranians who'd opted for that scary socialist government (at a time when the Soviet Union could still make a compelling case for rapid industrialization under a command economy -- they had excellent PR for a few decades, especially in the Third World) came to resent it, and their religious nationalists particularly resented it.  By the time things went bang, they were thoroughly pissed off at anyone who wasn't them, and it was in that mood the government of present-day Iran was formed.

     They don't like anybody, and the vast majority of the present-day population has grown up knowing most of their neighbors don't much like them.  If anyone's thinking there's going to be a rapid pro-Western realignment among the gen. pop. while the government folds...think again.  We might see some serious chaos; we might see the most hard-nosed hardliners claw their way to the top, or a floundering government of second- and third-rankers, but the good ol' days of the good ol' Shah aren't coming back and attempts to jam a new Shah into the socket are liable to backfire.

     You can't do any nation-building from bomb-dropping altitude, no matter how high you can make the rubble bounce.

So, Um--

     I picked the wrong Friday to skip posting.  The stuff I had in mind is largely moot, because as of middle-on-the-night thirty, we are at war, or as close as make no difference, especially if you live in Iran.  Or, in fact. Israel, or on or near a U. S. military base in the Middle East.  The Iranians haven't targeted embassies yet.  We didn't warn 'em to get non-combatants out of target zones -- or warn our own service spouses and families, for that matter. 

     But that's not the first teensy oversight.  Congress didn't get a chance to weigh in, either, and there are no indications they're planning to.  This is hinky, considering that the declaring of wars would be a power the United States Constitution (perhaps you have heard of it?) reserved exclusively to the actual legislators of the actual legislative branch.  Cynics will point out the Presidents have sounded the bugle and sent the troops marching off multiple times in the last century; from the Korean War onward, Presents have acted and Congress has scrambled to catch up, usually slapping a hasty authorization onto a fait accompli or some other Italian speed job.

     Nevertheless, 'tain't according to Hoyle or, in this case, all but one of the delegates to the Constutional Convention:
     "Pierce Butler of South Carolina was the only delegate to the Philadelphia Convention who suggested giving the executive the power to take offensive military action. He suggested that even if the President should be able to do so, he, in practice, would have the character not to do so without mass support. Elbridge Gerry, a delegate from Massachusetts, summed up the majority viewpoint saying he 'never expected to hear in a republic a motion to empower the Executive alone to declare war.' George Mason, Thomas Jefferson, and other contemporaries voiced similar sentiments."
     That's how Wikipedia puts it, as of this writing.  If you want to argue with the guys who were there, knock yourself out -- but you're wrong.

     Then there's one other finicky detail--  The Iranian government are bad guys.  They executed a large number of protesters recently, as in thousands, almost certainly tens of thousands, most of who had done no more than ditch work or school to go wave signs and shout, and they're a known source of material support for Mideastern (and other) terror organizations.  They're not nice guys; the West helped make them that way, but they have stayed that way and give no sign of backing down.  However, they hadn't started a fight with the United States.*

     Jus ad bellum is the notion that nation-states cannot (well, should not) just start up wars for the hell of it.  It's why heads of state or legislative bodies issue justifications that are sometimes absolute smack, like Vladimir Putin's assertion that Ukraine ought to be part of Russia because, well, it always was, and therefore it is perfectly okay to send in the Russian military to kill 'em until they go along with his notion.  Defensive war is held to be inherently justified: when Ukraine fights back, they're acting by the rules, and in defense, a country can even war partisan war, using informal troops without clear lines of command.  But the aggressor has got to show cause, and a country's got to be behaving very badly indeed before it's okay under international laws and treaties to try to knock sense into them.

     There is an entire messy body of international agreement covering this stuff, one that boils down to "Nation-states don't get to start wars unless they can establish a broad consensus the state being warred against is extraordinarily bad, but nation-states can always defend themselves against wars someone else started against them."  We...didn't manage to fulfill either one of those conditions.

     Do I think the United States government is a better government than the government of Iran?  I sure do.  They kill far fewer of the people who protest against them.  On a per-capita basis, it's a stunning difference.  Do I think Iran's government is a threat to peace in the Middle East?  Unquestionably.  --But that doesn't justify an undeclared war, set in motion by the Executive Branch of the U.S. government without formal declaration (by Congress, whose responsibility it is) or even the merest fig leaf of justification.

     Putin's war on Ukraine is still worse than Trump's war on Iran but make no mistake, they're different intensities of the same bloody color.

     Time will tell how this will play out and in the meantime, your "peace President," the guy I was told would keep this nation out of foreign wars, has launched yet another military intervention into another country, and it's not a quick bombing run or an overnight "Mission: Impossible" leader kidnapping.

     And in the meantime, how about that economy?  How about those Epstein files?  How about cratering Presidential approval ratings?  ...Pay no attention to the little man behind the curtain!  The Big Giant Head is talking, and what it's saying is, "War!  War!  War!"
__________________
*In fact, we were in diplomatic talks, albeit "indirect" ones, which is perhaps the most grade school method of diplomacy, "Millicent won't let you sit with her at lunch until you stop chewing on pencils," one side says to an intermediary, and the other side replies to the go-between, "Well, Millicent chews on her braids and and it's gross, and besides, she farts all the time and you can tell her I said that," and then a spokesthing announces to the press that they had a productive discussion, while waving a toothmarked pencil to clear away a faint, lingering stench. 

Politics Potpourri

     State of the Union, Checked: CNN did the good kind of fact-check, long on facts, cites and links, short on emotions.  It turns out -- and I know you'll be surprised -- a lot of the President's speech was not true.  Or even close.

     What The Hell's The Matter With Kansas:  This one's not easy to write.  The thing about authoritarianism is the thing about bullies: they pick on the easy targets first.  The Federal government, in the form of ICE, CPB, etc. descends on LA or Minneapolis-St. Paul or wherever and rounds up people for the crime of being too brown and/or foreign in public, sorting them out afterward, slowly and with plenty of trouble, but if you're not brown and/or a foreigner, it's mostly just something on the news.  When Federal officers, mostly far from home and new to this kind of mass enforcement, face unexpectedly obstreperous opposition and pepper-spray protesters at close range or even shoot and kill them, if you're not minded to be out protesting, well, that's more stuff on the news, happening to someone else, and never to most people -- though in the Twin Cities, it did finally inconvenience enough people that there was some stepping back.*

     So here's some more people who are just faces on the screen, some of 'em kind of off-putting, but that doesn't rate what happened: the Kansas legislature recently decided the sex listed on Kansas driver's licenses has to match the holder's sex at birth, period, no exceptions, no do-overs, and passed a law to require it.  This is not a problem for at least 99.9 percent of Kansans, but that 0.1 percent is some 290,000 people, and if ten percent of them, 29,000, had changed their driver's license (previously allowed) so Bruce and Barbie had an M and and F on their license to match their haircut and wardrobe (if not more) despite having been born Bettie and Bill, they'd better set aside time to-- And here's the rugpull: They don't have time. As reported, the state sent out letters this week to everyone who had made such a change they could find, warning them their driver's licenses were invalid as of today.  Driving on an invalid license in Kansas is a Class B misdemeanor, carrying a $1000.00 fine and up to six months in jail.  If they're going to update their license, they'd better get a ride. And the papers are reporting they didn't all get notification.

     You don't have to like 'em.  You don't even have to disagree with the law about which letter goes in that part of their driver's licenses.†  But what's the point of making 'em criminals before they even get a chance to comply?

     Many readers are going to look at that and say, "Those people? Who cares," and I get it as only someone who lived in a cheap apartment downtown and worked late shifts can get it: street queens aren't any nicer than born-female streetwalkers and it's icky to have to dodge 'em to get to your car.  Lots of "those people" are scary; but having worked in media and met lots of interviewees, I know they're not all that way.

     And I know bullies may start with the easy targets, the weirdos, the foreign kids, the kids nobody likes; but they never stop there.  They'll work their way up, and eventually, we will all have to choose: be a victim, or an oppressor?  That's a bullshit choice.  Be a person, and let other people be people, too.  If they're not breaking the law, leave 'em alone.  And speak up when bullies go after them.  Stand up.
____________________
* Just how much is in question, as enforcement efforts appear to have moved to suburbs, exurbs and county seats, and meanwhile the Federal government has imposed economic sanctions on Minnesota, the whole thing looking more and more like some kind of scaled-down war.
 
† Though I do have to ask, why is it there?  Photo, height, weight, hair and eye color are all on the license so Officer Friendly or the bank teller can tell if it's your license. Unless they're running genetic tests, the "sex" part of the ID makes more sense if it tracks what people look like.  If they get arrested, the police will strip-search them and if there are any lurid secrets to be found out, the police will do so then.  Me, I don't wanna know.