28 December 2015

Update no.732

Update from the Heartland
No.732
21.12.15 – 27.12.15
To all,

            I wish everyone a most enjoyable, prosperous and Happy New Year.

            The follow-up news items:
-- I offer a rather lengthy, YouTube, webcast video from Elon Musk’s Space Exploration Technology Company (SpaceX) [545, 546, 696] of the entire launch and recovery process for their latest Falcon 9 spacecraft resupply mission to the International Space Station (ISS) on Monday, 21.December.2015.
To avoid all the anticipatory hype, the launch begins at 23:00 vid time.  The really significant and historic portion of the sequence begins at 09:23 mission time (32:25 vid time) when the 1st stage booster of the launch vehicle is observed during its recovery burn and successful landing back at Cape Canaveral to be quickly refurbished and reloaded after deploying a supply craft to ISS.  To close this item, here is a link to another vid clip of the first stage booster landing:
Congratulations, SpaceX.  Nailed it!
-- Aslan Soobzokov filed a civil suit for defamation, citing as defendants Eric Lichtblau, the author of “The Nazis Next Door” [682] and the publisher of the book – Houghton, Mifflin, Harcourt [Soobzokov v. Lichtblau (Civil Action no. 2:15-cv-06831-SDW-LDW, filed: 09/14/2015)].  Aslan sent along both his claim petition and the defendants’ motion to dismiss.  The author and publisher claim the book is a non-fiction, history work.  Yet, the author is far too liberal in his use of the term ‘Nazi’ – throwing it around to condemn anyone who served with Germany in World War II.   Lichtblau’s representation of history is simply wrong and not supportable by facts.  It is far too easy to accuse without facts, and much too difficult to refute.  Justice is not served by rumor, innuendo, feud vengeance or wishful thinking.  I laud Aslan’s effort to correct the erroneous history and the smearing of his father’s reputation.  Good luck, Aslan.

            The Republican front-runner seems to have studied Josef Goebbels extensively and quite effectively.  If you tell an un-truth enough times, especially if you can mix in just a sliver of truth, most folks will believe the whole as truth.  He is proving Goebbels principles of propaganda with exceptional zeal and gusto.  No matter what any of us may think of him as a person and ‘presidential candidate’ (I shudder when saying those words with respect to him), we must give him credit.  He has apparently convinced a lot of people in this Grand Republic he deserves to be president and is the best person for the difficult job.  The pot calling the kettle black . . . doncha think?  Ya gotta love it!
            I freely and sincerely acknowledge he has certain attractive attributes, not least of which is his financial independence from the corrupting influence of unbounded campaign finance money.  As much as I have railed against the inherent corruption of money and the dependence of politicians on that money, as well as advocated for casting out the whole lot of those career politicians, the current Republican front-runner is NOT the answer . . . for a long list of reasons.  The arrogance of power is not a successful path to win friends and influence others.  I would rather have diplomacy and cooperation than bombast and bluster.  I’m just saying’.

            Comments and contributions from Update no.731:
“I shall indeed look out for your book at Amazon and let you know if I can find it over here.
“Agree your comments re dealing with the despots and dictators. It is indeed a dilemma of the utmost complication. Do you as a nation have some sort of input, no matter how small through this self-styled head of state and have some influence. Or do we close our eyes and consciences to the unpleasantness of any disagreeable foreign government? Indeed a quandary, if by choice, one to keep clear of.
“However, the world doesn’t work like that, throughout life we have taken sides, whether at a football match or opposing or supporting a repressive regime. The choice, as in all aspects of human endeavour has to be made.
“What sort of world would we have now if we had accepted Mr Chamberlin’s waved note of ‘Peace in our Time’? as he returned from Berlin? The thought is a brutal one.”
My response:
            The book (actually all my books) should be readily available in any format from Amazon UK.  Please let me know.  I must confess, it is written in American English rather than the mother tongue.
            The international relations conundrum is made all the more complex by the reality that the local population often blame the West for their plight in that they view their oppression as supported by the West.  Commerce is an essential element of progress, yet it often is the facilitator of their oppression.
            Our only influence is our voice and our vote.  We entrust our representatives and the government to do the correct thing.  Yet, the infinite question: correct for whom?  Correct for business does not necessarily mean correct for national security, or correct for the local population.  The government tries to find the correct balance between all the conflicting stimulants, and they don’t always get it right.
            Re: “Peace in our time.”  Quite so . . . a brutal one, indeed.  It is impossible to imagine what might have been, either way . . . if the French & British had stood up to Hitler in 1938, and not abandoned Czechoslovakia, or if the War Cabinet had sided with Lord Halifax in June 1940.  Hard choices indeed!  Fortunately, Sir Winston proved an English Worthy.

            My very best wishes to all.  Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap                        :-)

21 December 2015

Update no.731

Update from the Heartland
No.731
14.12.15 – 20.12.15
To all,

           Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all.

            I am happy and honored to announce the publication of my newest book, just in time for the holiday season.

TO SO FEW – Explosion
Book III of the To So Few series


Explosion is the third book of Cap Parlier’s To So Few series of historical novels.  Cap weaves an intriguing story tapestry with the personal experiences of the young pilots of Fighter Command, Royal Air Force, as well as the vital decisions of His Majesty’s Government, as they walk a very fine line in their defense of Great Britain.  Winston Churchill becomes Prime Minister as the German armed forces flooded across the border into the Netherlands, Belgium and France.  All too soon, the British stand alone against Nazi aggression.  President Roosevelt risks it all to provide what assistance he can to the beleaguered British and sends his unofficial emissary Colonel William J. Donovan to assess whether the British could hold the line at the English Channel.  Brian Drummond and Jonathan Kensington, along with the other fighter pilots of No.609 Squadron, live life to the fullest in those very dark days that Prime Minister Churchill would so famously say, “This was their Finest Hour.”   Cap takes the reader on an energetic journey through the Miracle of Dunkirk and the opening phase of what would become known as the Battle of Britain, in the cockpit of a Supermarine Spitfire fighter airplane, the Cabinet Room at No.10 Downing Street, and the Oval Office of the White House.  The reader will not be disappointed with the ride.
            Explosion is available in print and in all electronic book formats, on-line or ordered via your local brick and mortar store.  Cap has updated his website, if you need more specific ordering information or would like a convenient way to tell your family, friends, acquaintances, colleagues, co-workers, or just people you pass on the street.  LOL  If anyone has any difficulty obtaining a copy, please contact the publisher – Saint Gaudens Press – or Cap, as soon as possible.
            As usual, Cap encourages all readers to write a review for Amazon, Apple iBook, or even just send it to me.  Cap always returns to Sir Winston Churchill’s sage advice regarding criticism, any criticism is welcome; however, constructive criticism helps him improve his writing and storytelling.
            The manuscript of Book IV (“The Trial”) has been submitted to the publisher.  Hopefully, the fourth book will be published next year.  Cap is currently 20% through the first draft for Book V (“Deflection”); he truly enjoys the writing process.  More to follow.

            The follow-up news items:
-- The Defense Department reported that an American B-52 bomber on a routine mission flew within two nautical miles of Cuarteron Reef, Spratly Islands, South China Sea – another one of the PRC’s artificial islands [724, 725] to claim squatter’s rights.  The Pentagon also said they are investigating why one of two B-52s on the mission last week flew closer than planned to an area where the PRC and its neighbors have competing territorial claims.

            Now ain’t that special!  We had the latest renditions of presidential candidate debates for both major political parties this week – the Republicans on Tuesday, the Democrats on Saturday.  To be candid and frank, there were elements I liked and others that raised my level of irritation in both episodes.  All these presidential candidates, from all political parties I can hear, yammer on about what each of them is going to do, as if they are about to be crowned king or anointed dictator.  While their personal views on issues of our time are important, I am far more interested in how they will work with Congress, how they intend to be engaged in the legislative process.  The cooperation and compromise among all three branches of government and all political parties are essential to finding the path through difficult minefields we face within this Grand Republic and on the international stage.
            There were a few memorable moments.  Governor Bush to the front-runner, “You are not going to insult your way to the presidency.”  Amen, brother!  Governor Christie said, “A no-fly zone is a no-fly zone.”  Can I get another amen?  If you are not prepared to shoot down any violator, then do NOT declare a no-fly zone – either it is or it isn’t.  One lesson we should have learned a long time ago – do not ever declare something you are not fully prepared to carry out or enforce.  Senator Rubio seems to have the most balanced approach to immigration reform, despite the ranting of Senator Cruz.
            The Democratic candidates debate did not quite have the excitement as the Republican version, and seems to be more of a love-fest.  Governor O’Malley tried mightily to inject some fireworks into the event.  One notable impression: I am not and never have been keen on socialism, for a variety of reasons.  The Democratic candidates seem to have plenty of ideas on how to spend the Treasury.  Yet, I must say, taxing the wealthy into poverty is simply not a viable option.  Congress must find the will to close most, if not all, of the loopholes the wealthy use to avoid taxes.  The wealthy should pay their fair share – same as the rest of us, for starters.  I am intellectually pre-disposed to helping those who need help, but my hesitancy stems from finding the correct balance to avoid being taken advantage of by those who seek a free-ride rather than work.
            In the For-What-It’s-Worth category, one predominate topic rose from both debates.  Should we support an oppressive dictator in another country?  The dictator may well serve U.S. and allied interests, but deny freedom to his people.  As the Obama administration has learned in a large way, the question creates quite a conundrum.  U.S. interests are often directly opposed and conflicted – commerce versus chaos; stability versus instability.  Recent examples of Libya, Egypt and most notably Syria . . . the dictators were brutal oppressors of any dissent, yet at least we could deal with them.  What happened after the dictators were deposed or nearly deposed?  Chaos . . . and no one to deal with!  What’s worse in that region, the void has been filled with violent radical megalomaniacal fundamentalist groups . . . well, except Egypt, which has re-imposed another military dictator.

            Congress passed and presented to the President the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 [PL 114-xxx; H.R.2029; Senate: 65-33-0-2(0); House: 316-113-0-5(1); 129 Stat. xxxx] to fund the federal government through FY2016 – only 2.5 months late, but better than those damnable continuing resolutions and threats of government shutdowns.  The President may have already signed the bill into law before he departed for his family holiday in Hawaii.  The public record most likely has not caught up with the legislation.  Congratulations to new Speaker of the House Paul Ryan for finding the necessary compromise for passage of the appropriations bill.

            News from the economic front:
-- The Federal Reserve announced they will raise their benchmark interest rate by a quarter percentage point, to between 0.25% and 0.5% from near zero for the first time since December 2008, and would adjust their strategy as they see how the economy performs.

           No contributions from Update no.730.

           My very best wishes to all.  Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap                        :-)

14 December 2015

Update no.730

Update from the Heartland
No.730
7.12.15 – 13.12.15
To all,

            The 22nd anniversary of Jeanne’s 39th birthday occurred this week.  Jeanne wanted to take a mini-vaca, so we spent a couple of days at the Winstar Hotel & Casino in Thackerville, Oklahoma, just north of the Red River and the border with Texas.  We enjoyed an excellent birthday dinner – lobster and salmon, respectively.  Even better, she won a healthy chunk of change the first night and played the rest of our stay with their money.  I got some good writing time and the pleasure of her company.

            We know it has to happen someday – not this year.  Army-17, Navy-21; 14th straight victory.  This was a back and forth, close game.  Well done, Army, but congratulations, Navy.  Go Navy-Beat Army.  May the Good Lord bless all those who serve to protect freedom in this Grand Republic regardless of the uniform color.

           Plenty of Press and Talking Head prognostications regarding the latest outrageous pronouncement from the front-runner Republican presidential candidate saturated all media this week.
“Trump Calls for 'Complete Shutdown' on Muslims Entering U.S.”
by Jill Colvin and Bruce Smith
Associated Press
Published: Dec 7, 8:11 PM EST
The Republican front-runner garnered near universal condemnation, and yet, as noted in the Comment Section below and interviews of his supporters, more than a few citizens support his statement, at least in a form.  I cannot imagine such a proposal making it through Congress or surviving any judicial review of an executive order attempting to implement a religious test for entry into this Grand Republic.  Such a sweeping, broad, blanket religious filter for immigration or entry visa defies the rigors and tumult of our history and the very principles this Grand Republic was founded upon.  His statement is about as un-American as it gets.  Religion simply cannot be a criterion for public action or conduct . . . period!
            That said, I readily admit and acknowledge that bad guys are infiltrating European and other western countries, including Canada and the United States of America.  No person from anywhere should be admitted to this country or any other freedom-loving nation, if they represent a threat or potential threat to the safety and security of the country.  Should we be concerned about the political motives of anyone, refugee or not, attempting to enter this country?  Yes, absolutely, without question or doubt!  If we had such a threat test in place when Tashfeen Malik [729] came to this country( 2010), she would not have passed.  If there is a threat to this Grand Republic, it is the failure of Congress to pass comprehensive immigration reform and properly fund a robust, multi-layered Customs and Border Protection service.  Let us reject demonization of an entire religion, based on the violent action of a fraction of those Islam adherents.  Let us focus on the bad guys and not the majority of good people who seek the values and principles of this Grand Republic.  We are better than that.
           Related to the above opinion, the following article is quite relevant.
"Misleading political statements may hit unprecedented high in 2016, pundits say”
by Dave Helling
Wichita Eagle
Published: DECEMBER 9, 2015

            The U.S. Supreme Court denied the petition for review in the case of Friedman v. City of Highland Park, no.15-133 – a suburban Chicago ban of “assault weapons” and “large capacity magazines” [more than ten (10) rounds].  Justices Thomas and Scalia dissented in the denial.  The Supreme Court order thus affirms the 7th Circuit’s appeal review of the case from the district court.  The City’s ordinance further allows residents within its jurisdiction 60 days to move subject items outside the city limits.  As Justice Thomas notes in his dissenting opinion, the 7th Circuit’s reasoning and the Supreme Court refusal to review the decision draws into question the two most recent Court rulings on the Second AmendmentDistrict of Columbia v. Heller [554 U.S. 570 (2008); 26.6.2008] [342]; and McDonald v. Chicago [561 U.S. 742 (2010); 28.6.2010] [448].  Whether the Friedman ruling signals an evolutionary shift in the Supreme Court regarding every citizen’s constitutional right to keep and bear arms is a question that will have to wait for another day.  The Friedman order certainly brings a more confused state and implicitly invites other government jurisdictions to challenge the Second Amendment.

            Congress passed and the President signed the latest pork barrel laden law on the back of the much-needed highway-funding bill – Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act) [PL 114-094; H.R.22; Senate: 83-16-0-1(0); House: 359-65-0-9(2); 129 Stat. 1312].  Well, at least we can be thankful for the bipartisan effort to maintain the federal roadways and surface transport infrastructure of this Grand Republic, even if we must pay for it with the largesse of our representatives in Congress.

           This offering from a long-term contributor began a long thread that may be useful to other readers.
“Here's a cheering reality versus the stuff we get from spies and others.
“Check this out:
“Just How Dangerous Is Terrorism, Really?”
Posted on December 6, 2015
My response:
            Interesting stuff . . . yet, there is a huge fundamental difference between disease, or accidents, and someone trying to kill you . . . just because.
            I do not lose sleep fretting about terrorists.  Then again, I do not live or work in New York City or Washington, DC.
            I do not see the situation as a conspiracy for dictatorial or autocratic governance.
Round Two:
“I do not lose time or sleep over this simply because I have more important risks to address. I'm four times more likely to be struck by lightning than killed by terrorists. Automobiles, illnesses, and armed drunks present far greater threats than either lightning or terrorists.
“I do not see the ‘terrorist’ scare as a conscious working together of its participants, except possibly a few corporate people. What I do see is the most ordinary psychology at work. These people (most of those involved) see a chance to make a buck or gain power and they take it. They disregard consequences to others without ever thinking about them, much like other narcissists and/or sociopaths. Those consequences for the rest of us include the military casualties and their families, the innocent civilian casualties in the hundreds of thousands abroad, the convictions by entrapment of people who are basically mentally ill, and the absurd waste of tax dollars that we need desperately for better causes. We could be re-building highways, improving safety technology, doing medical research, and figuring out how to prevent suicides. All of those together would cost far less money than the ‘terrorism’ scare and any one of them would save far more lives than the ‘war’ on terrorism.
“I know very well that you are aware of the ‘autocratic governance’ issue. We have discussed the so-called PATRIOT and its expansions and extensions and also the essentially-unregulated NSA. I still do not see how you insist on people's freedom in personal matters then turn right around and support spying on us. Your arguments that the spies involved will stay within their mandate do not stand up to even one instance in history. The stated end will be ignored whenever it would block someone's impulse. People don't actually stick to those statements of intent. Psychology again explains where logic does not follow. If we give people power, they use it as they see fit, regardless of what we thought we said they should do. They misinterpret or justify pretty much whatever they're moved to do. Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
My response to round two:
            You and I do not live in New York City or Washington, DC, thus we are far less likely to be targets of the terrorists.  It would be interesting to see how the terror attack statistic narrow when the population is defined by the likely targeting.
            You may well be correct in your contention that the terrorist threat is being intentionally over-inflated to feed the military-industrial complex.  I cannot argue against that supposition.  Yet, what would you propose we do?  If we take the ‘no threat’ argument to its end point, we are relegating some citizens to being ablative sacrificial buffers for the rest of us.  As we see in this forum, perhaps President Obama has gone too far in the other direction from President Bush (43).  There is an argument there.
            I think you may be overstating my position somewhat.  Further, you may well be correct . . . the camel’s nose & all . . . regarding any domestic surveillance and the potential intrusion by the USG into our fundamental right to privacy.  I am just as uncomfortable as you apparently are.  Yet, the warrior in me also recognizes reality.  We chose to ignore the unfunded weaknesses in our border and immigration controls.  So, like it or not, the bad guys are among us.   How do we find them before they can kill, as they most assuredly will attempt to do?  Does it have to happen to you and me to believe we must do something?  I am not interested in giving the USG more power over our lives, but I am focused on finding the terrorists among us, whether they shout “Allahu akbar,” or “Heil Hitler” before they pull the trigger.  Likewise, I do not ever want to see the USG abuses Eliot Spitzer suffered, either.  Where is the balance point?
Round Three:
“The supposedly increased threat in large population centers does not correspond to any action of which I am aware since 9/11. Certainly San Bernardino is not large.  The attack on 9/11 was probably a genuine terrorist effort by a small faction as discussed earlier. The response was what got us into this.
“I do not accept your distinction. That distinction is used to abuse you. Let's face it, dead is final whatever way it occurs. Let's try to prevent that.
“I never said there was ‘no’ threat. I merely called attention to the work of those who have studied the relative threat of ‘terrorism’ compared to other threats. Terrorism ranks far the list of fatal events. We are wasting vast sums of money and too many lives combating something that kills less of us than almost any other cause, and all we get for that is an increased risk of terrorism due to ever-rising numbers of people in the Middle East who have literally nothing to lose (family, home, job). They know very well that U.S. bombs, drones, and soldiers (or U.S.-supported soldiers) caused that. Ideals have no role in survivors' decisions once the person's life is gone. They have to do something for shelter and food. Those who can flee are doing so, but others are fed and sheltered by the terrorists. C'est la vie. Everyone will strive to live somehow, no matter what others say.
“We can both decrease that risk and save far more lives by minding our own business. Our economy would benefit from better use of tax dollars. Let the Russians get bogged down. They seem to have forgotten their adventure in Afghanistan.”
My reply to round three:
            Yes, absolutely, without question or doubt, absent all the spending fighting terrorism, we would have more funds available for domestic projects for the common good.
            Surely, you must admit, there are bad people – men, women and children – out there who want to kill Americans, Europeans, any freedom-loving people who fail to embrace their distorted version of radical fundamentalist Islam.  You have freely and abundantly offered your criticism of those trying to protect us, so your objections are not debatable; they are what they are.  What I would really like to hear is what you propose we do about those bad folks out there who seek to kill our fellow citizens?  If what we are doing is patently wrong, then what is the correct way for us to protect our citizens from harm at the hands of those bad folks out there and among us?
            I have long understood and embraced the warrior’s mantra – the best defense is a good offense.
Round Four:
“That's where I started.  Treat those few actual ‘bad people’ as the criminals they are. If we allow the rest of the Middle Eastern people the chance, they will get back to their lives. That's what almost everyone does if they can. The ‘bad people’ (actual terrorists motivated by destruction of Westerners) were few until we gave them the status and recruiting resource of treating them like a nation instead of a few hundred ragged insane people. They will fade back into the scenery if we stop giving them the importance they seek and allowing/assisting them to achieve exactly what they tell recruits they are going to do.”
My reply to round four:
            Re: simple criminals.  Law enforcement has very rarely been able to intercede to prohibit crime.  With constitutional rights, e.g., freedom of speech, assembly, due process, equal protection and such, law enforcement is largely relegated to reacting to crime, to arresting and prosecuting criminals.  Given our resistance to intelligence operations and the hobbling of law enforcement, we are moving farther from preventative toward reactive.  Since these particular ‘criminals’ are in the business of killing and destruction, reactive means people die, property is destroyed.  I am struggling with seeing that as a better, more informed, more progressive approach.  I don’t want another drop of American blood spilled by the jihadis; reactive makes that far more likely.  So, let’s say I am wrong on this as well.  What tools would you give law enforcement to prevent these particular criminals from killing?
Round five:
“That applies to any kind of crime and is an especially good argument for registering firearms and keeping violent criminals from acquiring them.  The facts remain the same: few Americans die from terrorism, and the means we employ in this ‘war’ only aggravate the problem. Xenophobia is not a logical argument.”
My reply to round five:
            Indeed!  Except there is one small, little difference as I noted earlier.  The ‘criminals’ we’re talking about in this discussion are in the business of killing and shutting down Western society, causing us to cower in our homes in fear . . . not stealing something, beating up someone, or robbing a bank.
            As I read your words, it sounds like we should withdraw from the world, pretend the oceans will save us, and ignore the threats beyond our borders . . . well, as least until the ‘criminals’ decide to act inside this Grand Republic . . . then we should arrest them, try them, convict them and fill our already overcrowded prisons with radical fundamentalist jihadi Muslims.  That does not seem to be a successful plan for protecting our citizens.
            Re: xenophobia.  Who has suggested xenophobia?
Round Six:
“You don't see xenophobia here? Wow.
“At the time they pulled off 9/11, al-Qaeda had around 600 adherents. They scraped together enough to pull off their famous operation. That's a band of criminals at work, with no difference in structure or attitude from the violent anarchists of a century ago, the Red Army, or current-day ‘citizen militias.’ All of those are or were treated as criminals. However, al-Qaeda so stunned the U.S. on 9/11 that Bush 43 (or whoever owned him) saw a huge opportunity. Little Bush had the lowest approval ratings of any President in history on 9/10. This was his chance to look like a leader rather than the bumbling crook he is. Hence all that followed. We have almost built ISIL into a nation by treating al-Qaeda and its successors as nations and by ruining what had been sovereign nations that got in our way. (I don't bother trying to follow the various groups and alliances over there any more.) None of that has had an appreciable effect on events here in the U.S.A., except for dead and wounded soldiers and the drain on our national economy.
“What I would do comes closer to your derisive comment than you would believe, because I have come to believe that most of the ‘threat’ is either delusional or self-caused. I would first replace the entire cast of characters at top two or three levels of the various defense and spy agencies with people whose outlook is more sober and who have no allegiance or debt to any company serving the defense or spy establishment. Even if we lose something in ‘expertise,’ the gain in objectivity would more than balance that. Proceeding from there, I would reduce the defense budget, the largest in the world by far, to no more than twice the second-largest in the world for the simple reasons that nobody needs that much military and it's not useful in the current mode of fighting. That would pretty much solve the budget problem as an added benefit. Then we could proceed with determining the real risk, if any, and addressing it with the help of our allies. (That assumes we have genuine allies rather than client states.)”
My reply to round six:
            Surely you are not accusing me of xenophobia?  If so, I must be blind.  I have tried to be very precise with my words.
            I think you have seriously understated al-Qa’ida, but only you can convince yourself of that.  Let it suffice to say, al-Qa’ida has been attacking U.S. and Western interests since it formed in 1988 . . . long before 9/11.  The attack of 9/11 was simply the most successful and dramatic of their attacks.  Some, and here I will say experts on that region, will argue attacks began even before the group coalesced.  So, whether we label those bad guys as simple criminals or Islamo-fascist terrorists, let us not underestimate our adversary . . . an often fatal mistake in warfighting or crime prevention.
            Re: President Bush (43).  I do not share your opinion.  Yet, I will say again, he made a terrible mistake in trying to fight the Battle of Iraq on the cheap and not secure the country once Hussein was deposed, and that mistake certainly contributed to the creation of al-Qa’ida in Iraq and eventually ISIL . . . from the disenfranchised Iraqi Army Sunni officers and soldiers.
            Re: ISIL impact.  I believe you are understating the threat and impact ISIL has, does and will have on our infrastructure, our interests in world commerce, and the interests of our friends and allies.
                        There are some arguable points in your proposal.  From your proposal, I surmise you feel the so-called war on terror, or as I call it the War on Islamo-fascism, is predominately a matter of misguided domestic politics and the self-sustaining, self-directed, “feed me,” military-industrial complex (of Eisenhower’s admonition).  Thus, if we breakdown what is, we will be safer.  To take the inference, the ‘criminal’ threat from al-Qa’ida, ISIL, AQIM, al-Shabab, et al, is not worthy of interdictive action?  If so, then by your proposal we simply wait until they act, then arrest and imprison them (since we are headed toward no capital punishment).  Is that about correct?

            Congress moved quickly to amend the law regarding the Visa Waiver Program applicable to 38 identified, friendly nations.  The House of Representatives passed H.R. 158, provisionally titled the Visa Waiver Program Improvement Act of 2015 by an overwhelming margin [407-19-0-7(2)].  The bill must make it through the Senate and any necessary joint reconciliation process.  This bill is a long way from the needed immigration reform, but if it comes, the legislation would compel greater, more thorough communications with the subject nations.  At this stage, the bill looks like a good move.

           Contributions from Update no.728:
“Not sure why, but I did not receive an Update No.729 which should have been last Monday.
“Yes, Thanksgiving is in fact my favorite holiday of the year.
“I agree, I do not think the situation, conditions, trends, will improve in Syria, a proxy sphere, for USA, Russia, NATO (Turkey), etc.
“You mentioned  Carly Fiorina in Update No.728, it will be interesting to watch the circus from Las Vegas on Tuesday evening on CNN, the last GOP debate this year.  I have a funny feeling it is going to get more explosive, divisive and entertaining, as we get closer to the selection-election.
“On the climate talks, COP21, alleged success in Paris, I do agree that we have not been at all, good stewards of this wonderful Earth.  Industrial pollution and deforestation, I reckon could bring devastating consequences, not to mention the consequences of other abuse.  The key, as you mention, is whether Climate Change is directly attributable to man or part of natural historic cycles.  I think we all agree on that.  As you know, many believe the powers-that-be and military powers capable of doing such, have the capacity to modify weather.  To what degree, most of us do not know, and if on a large scale, I am sure such programs/assets are protected by national security.
“On population, the big problem it produces coupled with emerging industrialization economies, is resource wars.  Obviously drinking water is going to become scarce in more cities.  Then you have India that has so many in their population still without electricity, so they are bringing coal burning plants on-line, which will contribute to airborne pollution and said Greenhouse Gases.  You might recall that classic document by The Club of Rome, I believe entitled The Limits to Growth.  Didn't that document state a sustainable global population of 500-million people (or am I thinking of The Population Bomb book?).  There have been some solutions to large populations and their demand of resources, examples with be the desalination plants in the Middle East.
“True, it seems we face some interesting times on primarily the potential Cold War version 2.0 with Russia (and China).  The ISIS issue, the divisive issues on our domestic front, our economic challenges, and a whole host of other issues.  Having said that, I would bet the citizens during the Revolutionary War, Civil War, WW-I, and WW-II, likely sensed dire times.  Hopefully solutions are found, opportunities crafted, to, as they say...de-conflict the potential flash-points in geopolitics.  I wish I could be rosy about the global village and everyone getting along in multiculturalism and difference in religion, but I tend to think we are on a downward track and I do not believe we will see solutions on those fronts, anytime soon.”
My response:
            I have no idea what happened.  If you ever miss a distribution, you can always find the Update on-line.  I post the Blog on-line first, and then distribute to the list.  The URL: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com.
            Re: next Republican debate.  Indeed . . . should be quite interesting.  I believe it is the last debate before the Iowa Caucuses and the New Hampshire primary election.  The real voting is about to begin.  I suspect as the field tightens, we shall bear witness to even worse political behavior.  Heck, now, they are even talking about a brokered convention, which has not happened in a good many years.
            Re: climate change.  The issue of climate change is an intriguing and curious, scientific question.  Yet, weaning ourselves off fossil fuels is an imperative regardless of whether human activity has caused climate change.  The weaning process must be intelligent and orderly, or the disruption of life as we know it will be far more injurious.
            Re: population.  I do not recall the 500M threshold.  We passed that level a long time ago.  To my amazement and disappointment, we still have societies and cultures (and individuals) reproducing well beyond the population maintenance level of 2.2 children per productive couple, e.g., the Duggers.  Rampant reproduction should be viewed as just as threatening as burning fossil fuels . . . if not more so.

            Comments and contributions from Update no.729:
“Sorry to hear the concert was a bust for you.  Too bad it was so much noise and not the music you were hoping to hear.  It made me think about a musical experience I had a few years ago.  [My wife] and I went to Phoenix Symphony Hall.  The venue for the evening was simply entitled something like Music of the Movies; no list of specifics.  Now, there was one score among all others that I had fantasized for years about hearing performed live.  My expectations were high, as I could not conceive of this particular score being neglected.  The lights went down and the symphony began to play. The kettle drums led off with that unmistakable sound of the into to the Academy award winning score by Maurice Jarre from 1962’s Lawrence of Arabia.  My skin was crawling with goose bumps.  I have tears in my eyes now just thinking about the experience as I write this, as I had tears in my eyes then as the symphony progressed through that score of scores.  Wow!  An unbelievable concert experience I will remember for all time.  So, Cap, check out your local symphony for a better concert experience.  You might get a super wonderful surprise as I did.”
My reply:
            Thank you for the suggestion.  We have been to the Wichita Symphony many times.  The last experience was my favorite – Beethoven’s 9th Symphony; I can never hear it enough times.
            Just a related FYI: we saw the Rolling Stones in concert at Wichita State University’s Cessna Stadium a few years back.  We thoroughly enjoyed it.  In fact, I thought it was probably the most memorable rock concert since I saw Chuck Berry at the Fillmore Auditorium in Haight-Ashbury, San Francisco, in 1968, with a then little know local band opening for him – Big Brother and the Holding Company.
            According to our daughter, we were the only ones who did not enjoy the Garth Brooks concert last Saturday night.  Oh well.  C’est la vie.
 . . . with this shift in contribution:
“With regard to the disparaging comments directed toward Mr. Trump and Leonard Pitts statement: ‘Trump giving the people what they seem to want.’  I contend he at least is not giving the entitlement base what they want in terms of more free stuff, nor is he promising to do so.  He is not interested in growing a voter base for himself.  I applaud his desire to speak his mind.  And with regard to Lincoln’s statement, I am want to point out how many people were fooled into voting for Obama the first time and then again a second time.  And when I watch the Jesse Waters’ interviews on TV I am witness to the obliviousness and pitiful and painful naiveté of the ignorant general populace, and I clearly see how so many people can be fooled by the likes of those that have led their respective countries down the toilet.
“Speaking of a country going down the toilet, I just finished reading Hitlerland by Andrew Nagorski.  This is the story of the demise of America by the divisive and dictatorial rule under the Obama regime.  This is what I told an inquisitive woman sitting next to me on a flight recently when she asked what the book was about.  Dead silence.  The book was about the perspective of American journalists, embassy personnel, and others working in Germany in the years following WWI and leading up to WWII.  A different look than Shirer’s comprehensive Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, the book illustrates how many fell under the spell of Hitler, while others saw the forthcoming devastation but were powerless to get prominent leaders to heed their observations.  And for another look at WWII, I am now reading Killing Patton?
 . . . to which I replied:
            We are all entitled to our opinions, and each of us has a vote.
            You are apparently far more generous to the current Republican front-runner than I will ever be.  I appreciate frank speaking.  I am not a fan of political correctness.  However, I think respecting the diversity of others is essential to a viable democracy.  We shall see how this silly season plays out.
            I’ve not read the Naborski book and probably will not do so.
            I also do not subscribe to the notion the United States is in decline.  We have endured hard times before.  We shall grow stronger from this period as well.  I will not use the word ‘toilet’ and ‘United States’ in the same sentence or context.
 . . . and this follow-up comment:
“Just wanted to put my opinion out there as you do.  Obviously, my expressed generosity toward the Republican front-runner is arguable.  He has his faults, but I see him as being better than what we presently have or what we could have if the free stuff voters get their way.
“With regard to the U.S. being in a state of decline due to a blatant lack of leadership or not, that would certainly make for a great debate, but I am afraid I do not have the time or the headroom to devote to such scholarly endeavors.  Perhaps when I am retired.  Yes, we have endured hard times before.  But, we desperately need a leader that does not effuse divisiveness, can take responsibility for his or her actions, and can hold others responsible for their actions.
“Okay, maybe the toilet reference was a little strong, but I believe I got my point across.
“And from a military point of view, Marine to Marine, would you not deny that Obama is the worst Commander-in-Chief of all time?”
 . . . my follow-up reply:
            I invite you and everyone to voice your opinions just as I do.  I make no claim and offer no pretense to being correct.  I just think a vigorous public debate is essential to any viable democracy.  Disagreement is vital to the refinement of our opinions.
            Re: the Republican front-runner.  We shall respectfully disagree, my friend.  He has far too many critical character flaws for my acceptance, and he is shallow and purposefully offensive – those are destructive qualities.  I see none of those attributes as being worthy of the presidency.  For someone who has never served under arms or stood watch on the wall in harm’s way, he vomits bravado that I believe will unnecessarily spill the blood of patriots to feed his ego.  He certainly and masterfully tapped into the general disgust with the conduct of the Washington politicians of both parties.  I just feel dissent is not a sufficient reason to favor someone as offensive as he is.
            Re: presidential attributes.  I share your list as far as it went.  That said, I apparently give President Obama more credit than others do . . . such is life.  I also gave President Bush (43) more credit than the opposition did, yet I vehemently disagreed with his decision to go into Iraq on the cheap; that decision got more people killed than need be.
            I simply state for the record, this Grand Republic – the United States of America – is not in decline.  We are certainly being shaken by political forces that are NOT healthy.  Yet, I believe . . . this too shall pass.  We shall be stronger once we pop out the other side of this nonsense.
            Re: Marine to Marine.  President Obama is NOT the worst commander-in-chief of all time.  In fact, I will say, he is far from perfect, and there are many things he has done or espouses that I disagree with, but worst . . . no, I do not agree . . . Marine to Marine.
 . . . a supplemental side note for everyone’s benefit:
“I forgot to tell you I was down to Quantico a couple of weeks ago on business.  Fortunately we had some extra time and I talked my coworker into stopping at the Marine Corps Museum.  That was my sixth time there.  Have you been yet?  A great museum, to say the least.  My sixth time and still very moving.”
 . . . my reply to the supplemental:
            Unfortunately, I have not been back to Quantico since The Basic School (1970/1), so I have not had the pleasure.  You are not alone in your praise for the Marine Corps Museum.  It is on my list of ‘to do’s.  I’ve not been back to the Air & Space Museum since the Hazy center was completed, either.  I have a lot of things I need to do.  I hope your co-worker appreciated the visit as well.
 . . . and one last comment to the supplemental:
“I have been to the Udvar-Hazy facility twice, also a very worthwhile visit if you are in the area.  Yes, my coworker appreciated the visit to the Marine Corps Museum.  He was Navy, in SEAL School until he got injured, and then UH-60 ASW aboard carriers.”

A different contribution:
“Your observation, ‘we are beginning to see the peaceful, reasonable Muslims rise up against the Islamo-fascists who misrepresent their religion,’ seems to me to be far too generous toward the majority of Muslims, who are years behind in specifically and publicly rejecting the teachings of their religion that serve to inspire Islamic terrorists.  I see little of any such trend.  Unfortunately, this also somehow inspires fundamentalist Christians to respond at their worst, listening to their own demons.
“Our president's personal history of Muslim roots and radical associations, echoed in some of his early written declarations of sympathy and even fidelity toward Islam and perfectly consistent with his current reluctance to risk offending Muslims by demanding that they act meaningfully against radical Islam, is the irrefutable background for his characteristic lack of patriotic leadership in this regard.  I will not give him a pass on this, but alas, I must admit that there is not much point in trying to convince anyone of this truth, unless it can somehow be used to defeat Hillary by association.  He has already done most of his damage to our country, and he cannot undo the results of mistakes by two Bushes, so we would do better to hold our noses and back the POTUS now in whatever he says about limiting our involvement in the middle east while vastly strengthening out homeland security (without inviting trouble in the form of inadequately vetted refugees).”
My response:
           Re: too generous.  Perhaps, I will grant you that.  I will only say that recent machismo, bravado, pandering, political rhetoric from one presidential candidate is playing directly and precisely to the ISIL playbook.  He is giving them exactly what they seek.  ISIL wants a resurrection of the crusades, to stimulate Christians into a centuries long blood letting in the name of religion – Christianity vs. Islam.  And, what did they crusades accomplish?  Islam grew and spread rapidly across all of North Africa, into Spain, and to the very heart of Europe.  Vilifying an entire religion is ABSOLUTELY NOT the path to defeating ISIL, al-Qa’ida, and other rabid ideological violent movements.  We need to seek out, embrace and encourage the moderate and liberal Muslims to help us defeat the rabid aberration among us.  We need to engage, to get deeper into Islam . . . NOT push them away.  Please recall my earlier contention; Islam is 600 years behind in moderation and tolerance.  We need to help them mature at a faster pace than Christianity was able to mature.  Fueling yet another religious war is simply wrong in so many ways.
            He said, “We have no idea whether they love us or hate us.”  He is more correct than not.  Yet, his reaction is exactly wrong.  Instead of pushing them away, we need to get closer, not farther away.
            Re: “Our president's personal history of Muslim roots and radical associations.  Simply put, I do NOT agree with your assessment of President Obama.  Also, I do not agree with the President on a number of issues, but I do agree with his softer, more diplomatic approach to international affairs.  The Obama administration has tried mightily to engage the rest of the freedom-loving peoples rather than beat on his chest like a Silverback Mountain Gorilla and charge any threat.
            I still believe we should welcome refugees as we did in 1845, 1945, 1975 and other periods as oppressed or abused people sought freedom.  My paternal ancestors fled France in 1686, to escape religious persecution.  Let us remain true to the heritage of this Grand Republic . . . rather than reject our heritage in some emotional, knee-jerk, ill-informed reaction.
            The kind of division, isolation and xenophobia being promoted by one presidential candidate (and I must say, I am reticent to give him that honorable title) will NOT strengthen this Grand Republic.
 . . . a follow-up comment:
“Well said, but erroneous.  I guess our only disagreement is over the difference between the composition of the refugees of history that you mention and the composition of the refugees from Muslim countries today.  Your compassion is admirable, and the words of tolerance are unarguable, but naïveté in the face of modern facts is surprising and dangerous.  Trump is inarticulate and blunt about it, but he is dead right about the dangers of un-vetted admission of all Muslims.  If we would just postpone extending our open arms and demand moderate Muslim leadership against Islamic fundamentalism in return for ultimate safe havens, we would be respected for both our wisdom and our compassion.  I fear the bleeding heart syndrome, heavily supported by the main stream media, has blinded many well-meaning Americans, and the Islamic State leaders must be laughing their heads off.”
 . . . and my follow-up response:
            Well, first, I do not see my error . . . refugees are refugees whether from a potato famine, world war or civil war.
            Re: “un-vetted admissions.”  I do not know anyone, including the Obama administration, who is arguing in favor of un-vetted admissions of any kind for any group.  While I will not and cannot claim any vetting process in 1845, there was a vetting process in 1945.  Even Jews trying to escape the Holocaust in 1941 were vetted.  Nazis, and here I mean hard-core NSDAP members in good standing, were vetted and still allowed into this country, because we needed their “skills” in combating the Red Menace.  So, let us vet these ‘refugees.’  Where we are able, we should allow them refuge.  Where we cannot, sorry . . . “no soup for you.”  I suspect the vetting process may yield some bad guys, which would be a double benefit.  Banning all Muslims is about as un-American as it gets, IMHO.

Comment to the Blog:
“The correct name of the place in the news at San Bernardino is ‘Inland Empire Regional Center,’ not ‘Inland Regional Center.’ ‘Inland Empire’ is the regional label for San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, in the same sense as ‘Space Coast’ is used for the area around Cape Canaveral.
“The ‘War on Terror’ cannot be won. It's not a war. Pretty much every large society in the world has a faction of violent anarchists, typically small. The USA has our militias and others, various nations have the Red Army or similar groups, and the Muslim nations have the Wahabi and a few others. Until 9/11, the criminal acts of such people were always treated as crimes, all the way back to the story about the Romans' execution of Jesus because his enemies alleged he claimed to be ‘King of the Jews.’ The Bush 43 Administration's mistaken response to 9/11 gave what had been a few ragtag radicals the status of a nation in the eyes of both Arabs and Muslims. That has made a great deal of money for the military-industrial complex since then and has increased the power of the spy community and their allies/owners beyond the restrictions of the Constitution. However, the ‘terrorists’ we treat as nations cannot be handled as we would handle a nation that attacked us. They have no stable territory to conquer, no formal government to force into submission, and no economy or infrastructure to be damaged. It only aggravates the situation that we continue to treat them as nations. Now the Russians have joined in this foolishness as well as our lapdog ‘allies.’ All of this only serves the often-stated goals of Al-Qaeda and its successors--bleeding our resources, damaging our leadership in the world, and dividing us.”
My response to the Blog:
            Re: “Inland Regional Center.”  You did not offer an authority or source for your suggested ‘proper’ name.  According to the organization’s official website, which I have no reason to doubt, the proper title, label or name is as I reported.  Wikipedia reflects a previous title of: Inland Counties Regional Center.  I suspect ‘Inland Empire’ is a local colloquialism.
            Re: “War on Terror.”  You make valid points, which are more applicable to al-Qa’ida and its affiliates, i.e., ideological organizations focused upon infiltration of existing governmental systems.  They did not outwardly seek territory, although ultimately they seek the domination of Islam in regions, e.g., Taliban.  ISIL is different.  Their mission is domination of territory – a caliphate – a ‘theocratic’ nation-state, the Sunni version of the Shi’a Islamic Republic of Iran.  Ideological terrorist organizations have been beaten, e.g., Red Army Faction, Symbionese Liberation Army, et cetera.  I do agree using conventional forces in ideological insurgency operations is not a high yield endeavor.  From my perspective, the Obama administration appears to have taken a more realistic approach to dealing with the various terrorist groups, although there is always room for improvement.

            My very best wishes to all.  Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap                        :-)