Update no.736

Update from the Heartland

No.736

18.1.16 – 24.1.16

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

To all,

            The follow-up news items:

-- An interesting opinion regarding Malaysian Airlines Flight MH370 [638, 691, 711, 716]:

“Australia’s MH370 search has ignored evidence of someone at the controls”

by Byron Bailey
[a 26,000 hour B777 captain]

The Australian

Posted: 9.January.2016

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/inquirer/missing-flight-mh370-can-only-be-explained-by-pilot-control/news-story/df6b2e8e700e9232d0f3e9078c8d5000

Perhaps it is just that Bailey’s opinion is the same as mine from early on in this investigation, but the physical evidence suggests this hypothesis in strong measure.  The radar flight track data cannot be explained by any other scenario other than “controlled flight,” i.e., an intentional act by some knowledgeable pilot on the flight deck.  The physical search for the wreckage cannot continue in perpetuity, but we can hold to the hope the searchers get lucky.  If they do, I suspect more evidence will accumulate to validate the predominate hypothesis.

            The latest SpaceX launch and 1^st stage booster-landing attempt occurred on Sunday, a week ago, with information coming in after my close out for last week’s Update [735].  The satellite launch was successful.  This time, they tried to land the 1^st stage booster on a barge at sea.  They tried the barge landing before.  This attempt came much closer to success, but alas physics is physics and very unmerciful.  The booster landed on the barge, on spot, which is an accomplishment in itself.  However, at motor shutdown, it appeared the center of gravity of the assembly was not within the capacity of the struts to keep the assembly upright.  It was a valiant attempt that came oh-so-close to success.  I wonder how the barge stabilization is accomplished and how much un-attenuated ocean swells contributed to the result.  We have to admire the incredible ambitiousness of their efforts to recover reusable hardware and reduce launch costs.

            Unfortunately, I was not able to listen to the Democratic Party candidate debate a week ago, Sunday night, in time for last week’s Update [735].  Thank goodness for Digital Video Recorders.  I have two broad, general impressions from the latest Democratic Party episode.

            First and foremost, I am truly appreciative of the Democratic Party candidates – all three remaining candidates.  They far more closely approached a genuine debate of ideas, beliefs and potential policy debate than anything the Republicans have offered so far. 

            Second, I must confess my deep disappointment that the NBC moderators were so blatantly biased to the two front-running candidates.  I wanted to hear more from Governor Martin O’Malley of Maryland, but he was virtually ignored by the moderators, and cut out of most of the responses.

            There are a number of points I agreed with, e.g., campaign finance, corporate lobbying, but there are far more things that I disagree with in their espoused positions.  For example, let’s take the minimum wage debate to an extreme.  How do we decide what is reasonable?  If US$15/hr. is the minimum wage for the most basic, unskilled labor performed, why is that the minimum.  Why not US$25, US$100, US$1000 or even US$1M per hour?  Why not?  Doesn’t everyone deserve to be wealthy?  What is reasonable?  The minimum wage establishs the fair wage for basic labor.  More skilled labor should be compensated from that level.  I am struggling with what that number should be.

            The contrast between the two parties has become rather stark.  One party seems focused on the policy debate and finding solutions (whether we agree with them or not, while the other party appears angry, self-absorbed and far more interested in attacking people including their own party members rather than finding solutions to real problems.  I wonder how long this contrast will be sustained.

            On the plus side, to my knowledge, Hillary Clinton is the first candidate on either side to publicly state that she was prepared to work with the Congress she is given to complete the business of this Grand Republic – easily said, not so easily done.  Yet, as secretary of state, she certainly exercised diplomacy and may well be able to use her service in Congress and her acquired skills to do the hard work in negotiating compromise solutions to the nation’s problems.  To be frank, I do not see ideological intransigence as an admirable or worthy trait in a future president.

            “That’s just my opinion, but I could be wrong.”

            The Republican front-runner wants to force Apple, Inc. to build all of their products in the United States . . . the very same place some folks are trying to raise the minimum wage to US$15/hour.  Such an action, if it was successful, would ultimately harm the country.  This country was built upon free commerce and has spent treasure and the blood of patriots to defend freedom of commerce.  There must be an incentive to improve and succeed.  This proposal does not make sense from a business or commerce perspective.

            After praising Governor Haley’s opposition rebuttal last week [735], I am reminded that no one is perfect.

“Nikki Haley repeats old fairy tales about U.S. history”

by Leonard Pitts Jr.

Wichita Eagle (Miami Herald)

Published: JANUARY 17, 2016; 6:02 PM

http://www.kansas.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/article54988155.html

Pitts illuminated a statement by Haley the following day: “When you’ve got immigrants that are coming here legally, we’ve never in the history of this country passed any laws or done anything based on race or religion.”  Pitts cited a half dozen laws and court rulings that refute Haley’s statement.  Actually, Pitts was being generous and gentle.  The list of contrary citations could be much longer.  Missing history so blatantly tarnishes the exceptional rebuttal speech Haley offered – so much for greatness.

            News from the economic front:

-- The People’s Republic of China reported their Gross Domestic Product (GDP) expanded by 6.9% in 2015, down from the 7.3% gain reported in 2014.  They also reported their economy expanded 6.8% in 4Q2015 from a year earlier, edging down from 6.9% growth in 3Q2015.  The 2015 growth is the slowest in a quarter century, confirming a loss of momentum in the world's second-largest economy that continues to chill global activity and spook markets worldwide.

            Comments and contributions from Update no.735:

“Regarding The State of the Union address, you stated ‘To me, most notable, he said, [W]e need to reject any politics -- any politics -- that targets people because of race or religion.’  If he truly believes the words he speaks, why did he allow the targeting of conservative organizations by the IRS?  If he did not know what was going on, as he so often explains in his defense, why did he not hold those at the IRS responsible for their blatantly misdirected actions?  In his statement, Obama’s self-serving hypocrisy comes shining through.”

My response:

            Let’s not get too carried away.  Do you believe the Obama administration is the first to use the IRS to ‘punish’ their opposition?  I am not condoning what they did.  It was wrong in every possible way.  I am equally disturbed that the perpetrators were not prosecuted.  I am also disturbed the perpetrators of the Great Recession of 2008 were not prosecuted.  It is disappointing, but I have been disappointed by every administration in my lifetime . . . at least in my political awareness lifetime, since I do not recall the Truman and Eisenhower administrations.

 . . . follow-up comment:

“I am not trying to get too carried away here—where did I go wrong—and I am not discounting the fact that transgressors and perpetrators of the past were not prosecuted when they should have been, nor that there have been disappointments from every administration—and I liked the way you parsed that: ‘…at least in my political awareness lifetime,… .’  Your political awareness acumen is much greater than mine, and I respect that, so, I will respectfully defer to you if you thought I was getting carried away and venturing outside of the context of your original statement.  In which case, if you think I strayed from the context of his statement by calling him a hypocrite, do you think Obama gave himself a contextual waiver by way of concluding qualification in his sentence structure by stating: …that targets people because of race or religion, after ‘any politics?’  Regardless, and taking it a step further in our discussion, why do you think Obama did not hold those in power at the IRS responsible?  Had he done so, would that not have spoken volumes regarding his leadership?  As it stands, I think it does speak volumes regarding his leadership.”

 . . . my follow-up response:

            First and foremost, you are entitled to your opinion and have every right to express your opinion as strongly as you wish . . . as am I.  Please do not view my words as any constraint of your right to speak.  I have invited everyone to speak freely in this forum.  I truly and sincerely believe our collective disagreements and debates are vital to an enduring democracy.  I do NOT ask you to defer to me on anything.  I want to hear what you think and why.

            Re: “do you think Obama gave himself a contextual waiver by way of concluding qualification in his sentence structure by stating: …that targets people because of race or religion, after “any politics?”  Perhaps.  I cannot explain why the perpetrators at the IRS were not prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.  While I defend everyone’s right to discriminate in their private lives by any one or combination of the social factors, I will vehemently condemn such conduct in the public domain.  The government and all its personnel as representatives of the government do NOT have any rights to discriminate by any of the social factors.  Their choices are treat everyone equally or find another job, period.  Politics is one of the social factors, as are race and religion.

           Re: “why do you think Obama did not hold those in power at the IRS responsible?”  I do not know.  It is baffling to me.  The evidence seems rather clear to me.  To date, I see that whole IRS episode as one of Obama’s clear failures as President.  He did not represent all the People . . . only the people who support him, and that is not the making of a great president in my eyes.  Personally, I think Jimmy Carter’s failures as President were far greater and more serious, yet I see Carter as a good man with a big heart who tried mightily to do the correct things.  I just urge all of us to treat President Obama fairly and with respect . . . despite his failures.  He has also accomplished some very good things, IMHO.

            Re: “Had he done so, would that not have spoken volumes regarding his leadership?”  Yes, absolutely, without question or doubt.  If Richard Nixon had stood up like a man and a leader in June 1972, and told us he screwed up, provided inappropriate guidance for and encouragement to nefarious conduct, he might be remembered for the good he did . . . alas, he failed miserably as is remembered accordingly.

            My point was, we enact laws in good faith and rarely include sufficient checks & balances to protect against flawed human beings abusing the law.  [FYI: my direct concern for the present kerfuffle regarding gun sale background checks.]  I am convinced, although I cannot produce physical evidence, that the information collected by the IRS has been abused for political purposes since the inception of the IRS after passage of the 16th Amendment.  Obama’s IRS operatives were more blatant and clumsy than their predecessors and got caught red-handed.  I doubt President Obama knew directly or ordered the IRS do what they did, just as I do not believe Richard Nixon ordered “The Plumbers” to break into the DNC Office in the Watergate.  President Obama deserves a failed mark for the IRS debacle; he does not deserve condemnation.

Another contribution:

“Much is at stake on the MH#17 shoot down.  Something tells me we are far from seeing the impact from the tragedy, whether economic (lawsuits/further sanctions), geopolitical, and informational.

“While I do send materials out from time-to-time from Russia Today (RT), believe me, I always factor in their bias and/or disinformation.  Similarly, I take into account New York Times and Washington Post being used as propaganda pieces too.

“No doubt the Iran in the picture right now is significant for global geopolitics, economics, and we shall see if the longtime proxy wars between Saudi Arabia and Iran, turn to warmer if not hot wars. 

“Governor Nimrata ‘Nikki’ Haley née Randhawa of South Carolina, did offer an interesting follow-up to Obama's State of the Union address. She is a rising person in the GOP.   The one to also keep an eye on is Representative Tulsi Gabbard (D) of the second congressional district of Hawaii.  She is vice-chair of the DNC.  I've been so far fairly impressed with her coming from the party I usually ignore (unless I am angry at them).

“Cap, your statement:  "I used to think the Republican Party stood staunchly against big government.  I am convinced the concept of being against big government is alien to the two largest American political parties.  Both parties are big government parties..." is very accurate.  The two parties just use different means to motivate us to vote for them, some use much more fear of other type of enemies, but they still always use fear or doubt to maintain their power.

“I agree with you on Iraq and Syria.  I believe that that entire region would be more stable today had we just left Saddam, Gaddafi (Libya) and Syria's Assad in place.  Sure, dictators, but the so called Arab Spring seems to have brought much more hardship for the very people seeking reform.”

My reply:

            Re: MH17.  The effects have already been felt, even though the leading hypothesis has not been proven.  Aircraft commanders have long been trusted individuals, excluded from screening, impairment testing and such, but no longer.  I suspect you are correct; we have more changes to come.

            Re: news sources.  Likewise.  Single sources are always risky whether with national security intelligence or political musings.

            Re: IRI.  From a global perspective, you are correct.  From a regional perspective, they are significant . . . if for no other reason than their actions are modifying the actions of Saudi Arabia.

            Re: Haley.  More on Nikki in this week’s Update.

            Re: Gabbard.  Quite so.  I’m watching & listening as well.

            Re: two major political parties.  Their actions certainly suggest more similarity than difference . . . it is only a matter of what they spend the treasury on for their largesse.

            Re: dictators.  My opinion as well.  Only time shall tell the tale whether this is a good approach from a U.S. national security perspective.

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

Cheers,

Cap                        :-)

Update no.735

Update from the Heartland

No.735

11.1.16 – 17.1.16

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

To all,

            The follow-up news items:

-- The Russians are apparently disputing the findings of the OVV report [722] on the cause of the Malaysian Airlines Flight MH17 shootdown over Eastern Ukraine in July 2014 [657, 665, 722].  The article:

“Final MH17 crash report ‘unsubstantiated, inaccurate,’ new Russian probe says”

RT News

Published time: 14 Jan, 2016 08:21; Edited time: 14 Jan, 2016 11:14

https://www.rt.com/news/328883-mh17-dutch-report-inaccurate/

The OVV report was one of the best, if not the best, assessments of a shootdown event that I have seen.  The OVV went to extraordinary lengths to produce a careful, methodical, fact-based analysis of the debris recovered from the crash site.  The Russians offer no comparable, fact-based analysis.  In short, the Russians appear to be intent upon keeping the waters as muddy as they are able for as long as they are able.  Further, several newspapers reported the British Bellingcat group has submitted a study to the OVV for their evaluation that claims to have developed evidence as to who pulled the trigger to launch the Buk1 missile that brought down MH17.  I have not seen the Bellingcat report and I await the OVV assessment.

-- The United Nations’ International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported that the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) has completed all of the requisite steps to implement the nuclear deal completed last July [709].  The U.S. and IRI exchanged prisoners.  While the powers that be claim the two events were unrelated, I am not convinced, not that it really matters.  Then, the day after the prisoner swap, the U.S. Treasury Department imposed sanctions on 11 IRI-linked entities associated with the IRI’s ballistic missile program after the IRI conducted a medium range missile test outside the July agreement.  Diplomacy is better than war.  Time shall tell the tale, whether this agreement was a noble achievement or just another Munich (1938).

            President of the United States of America Barack Hussein Obama delivered the State of the Union information in accordance with Article II, Section 3, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution – his last.  Once again, he offered us an exceptional speech of considerable skill.  To me, most notable, he said, “[W]e need to reject any politics -- any politics -- that targets people because of race or religion.  This is not a matter of political correctness. This is a matter of understanding just what it is that makes us strong. The world respects us not just for our arsenal; it respects us for our diversity, and our openness, and the way we respect every faith.

            “His Holiness, Pope Francis, told this body from the very spot that I'm standing on tonight that ‘to imitate the hatred and violence of tyrants and murderers is the best way to take their place.’  When politicians insult Muslims, whether abroad or our fellow citizens, when a mosque is vandalized, or a kid is called names, that doesn’t make us safer.  That’s not telling it like it is.  It’s just wrong.  It diminishes us in the eyes of the world.  It makes it harder to achieve our goals. It betrays who we are as a country.”

            I say, amen brother.  Yet, I believe we should call a spade a spade.  Islamo-fascist terrorists are just that . . . fascists who seek to impose their will on others based on their grossly distorted view of a noble religion.

            The President went on to observe, “Our public life withers when only the most extreme voices get all the attention. And most of all, democracy breaks down when the average person feels their voice doesn’t matter; that the system is rigged in favor of the rich or the powerful or some special interest.

            “Too many Americans feel that way right now. It’s one of the few regrets of my presidency -- that the rancor and suspicion between the parties has gotten worse instead of better.  I have no doubt a president with the gifts of Lincoln or Roosevelt might have better bridged the divide, and I guarantee I’ll keep trying to be better so long as I hold this office.”

            Again, I will say, amen brother.  If I was asked to point to President Obama’s greatest failure, I would answer: his inability to engage Congress and find compromise, to do the really hard work of negotiating mutually acceptable (or dissatisfied, depending on perspective) solutions to the real problems before this Grand Republic.  Negotiating solutions with Congress is a dirty, nasty business that must be done.

            Governor Nimrata ‘Nikki’ Haley née Randhawa of South Carolina delivered the opposition response to the President’s State of the Union report.  To be direct, I was impressed with her oratory skill, delivery and most of her message . . . very much Obama-esque, actually.  I latched onto one particular statement.  “Today, we live in a time of threats like few others in recent memory.  During anxious times, it can be tempting to follow the siren call of the angriest voices.  We must resist that temptation.”  Amen sister!  It is that siren call that bothers me the most about the angry voices of the opposition – mob incitement at its most rudimentary level.  That anger may play well to those so inclined to that anger, but such divisiveness does NOT serve this Grand Republic well.  In that sense, Governor Haley is spot on the money.  Well done, Nikki.

            I watched both the under-card and main event Republican candidate debates.  I was left with several broad impressions.  It is worth noting this episode was the first instance of a candidate rejecting the invitation to participate – Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky decided to pout over his being relegated to the under-card debate.

            The near universal mantra among Republican candidates is “Take America back” or “Make America Great, Again.”  I keep wondering, back from whom or what?  The chant seems like a particularly pessimistic view of this Grand Republic.  The notion that the United States is in irreparable decline may feed red meat to the far right, but it not based on reality.  I’m truly sorry to say, the Republican Party has taken on the tone of the ‘Doomsday Party.’

            I used to think the Republican Party stood staunchly against big government.  I am convinced the concept of being against big government is alien to the two largest American political parties.  Both parties are big government parties; it is only a question what they spend money on.  Republican senators and representatives in Congress have been just as effective and determined in sucking funds from the Treasury to pay for their largesse.  Thus, when I hear a Republican claim to be against big government, I hear HYPOCRISY!  This constant “my spending trumps your spending” does absolutely nothing – NOTHING – but, perpetuate constant division, abuse, conflict and political polarization.  I am in favor of a strong military, but a military configured for the war we are in and the likely war of tomorrow, not a war fought 70 years ago.

            Another popular epithet thrown at President Obama, the current administration and by default the Democratic Party candidates is incompetence or softness on ISIL, Syria, the IRI, and all the bad guys in the region.  There was a lot of wild talk about taking out Assad, and taking out the government as was done in Iraq.  Such talk is very easy to say, but extraordinarily simplistic in reality.  Iraq clearly demonstrated that totally dismantling the government including the military without a properly sized security force and governance system in place produces chaos and sectarian violence.  That force must be an integrated, multinational organization of most likely one million men or more.  It cannot be a Sunni dominated force any more we should have allowed the Shiite majority to extract their pound of flesh in the aftermath of deposing Saddam Hussein.  We have chaos and a dysfunctional, failed state as a consequence.  I’m all for removing Assad and trying him for crimes against humanity, but we cannot do so unless we (or someone) commits to providing security and interim governance as was done in Europe and Japan after WW2.  The saber-rattling without the substance of reality we so often hear from this group is simply wrong and irresponsible.

            I do understand the frustration of the Republican candidates over the President’s use of executive orders, but that does NOT make the President a liar or make those orders unconstitutional.  POTUS has clear authority.  Further, every president since George Washington (except for William Henry Harrison) have availed themselves of executive orders for a broad spectrum of extra-congressional executive action.  President [F.D.] Roosevelt used executive orders in arguably the most sweeping manner of any president in history.  Trying to paint President Obama, as a bad man bent upon destroying this country, is NOT grounded in truth and certainly not a leadership position intended to unite the country to face the serious issues confronting our future.

            The specific matter of gun control and the President’s extension of background checks to unlicensed gun dealers (the so-called gun show loophole) I find the inflammatory political rhetoric to be disingenuous at best and outright fallacious at worst.  As discussed in Update no.734, the issue is not the regulation (executive order) that is the real problem; it is how the bureaucrats administer & enforce the regulation.  They criticized the FBI for not completing the background check on the SC killer in time, and yet they constrain funding and thus personnel that prevents them from handling the volume of check requests in a reasonable time.  The erroneous political drivel does NOT contribute to a reasonable, workable, respectful solution.

            Then, these potential future leaders of this Grand Republic lambast President Obama for resolving the capture of the U.S. Navy personnel by IRI forces off Farsi Island in the Persian Gulf.  They were offended by the video of their capture and their apologizing for entering Iranian waters.  This incident was resolved quickly and successfully by diplomacy, and as such, it represents exactly the problem we face in our choices this coming November.  If we violated Iranian territory, we should apologize; it was our mistake.  There are many elements of the Navy incident that bother me, but accusing the President and Secretary of State of incompetence when so little is known about what and how it happened is seriously divisive, counter-productive, and verging on being grossly irresponsible.

            The Democratic Party candidates debate was held Sunday night.  I was not able to watch the event live, but I did record it.  I did not have sufficient time to absorb and digest the debate, so my impressions and opinions will be covered in next week’s Update.  The timing was not good for my Update timeline.

            The silly season transitions to Phase 2 in a couple of weeks, when the actual voting of citizens begins with the Iowa Caucuses.  I suspect the field will narrow farther after the first two or three votes (Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina).  Perhaps, as the field narrows, we can also transition to more responsible and constructive debates.  Then again, that notion may be naïve wishful thinking.  We shall see.  We still 10 more months of this.  Give me strength.

            News from the economic front:

-- Goldman Sachs Group announced they reached a settlement worth more than US$5B in a U.S. probe into Goldman’s sale of fraudulent mortgage-based securities on residential properties in the early to mid-2000s that contributed to the Great Recession of 2008/2009.  Goldman will reportedly pay a US$2.385B civil monetary penalty, a US$875M cash payment, and US$1.8B in consumer relief in the form of forgiveness for underwater homeowners and distressed borrowers, among other things.  Goldman was one of several banks targeted in investigations from federal and state officials.  Based on the consequences of what happened, a bunch of someones should have gone to jail for what they did.  These civil penalties in the light of monstrous criminal behavior are not contributory to prevention of future abuses.  Corporations simply absorb these penalties as the cost of doing business, and current and future corporate leaders are not dissuaded from such clearly abusive behavior.

           Comments and contributions from Update no.734:

“What a fine example of your piercing insight and articulate use of our language!  I have only one suggestion for a better word choice.

“As one of the many devilish details more than likely to be unaddressed in any so-called gun control legislation, you offered: ‘How is the information derived through the linked files controlled and sufficient safeguards in place and enforced to ensure unauthorized or unintended collateral use is prohibited?’  IMHO, the last word should have been ‘prevented.’”

My response:

             Thank you for your generous words.

             Re: ‘prevented’ v. ‘prohibited.’  I’m good with your suggestion.  Consider it done and thank you for your contribution.

Another contribution:

            “Your last blog mentioned the Administration’s efforts with guns.  I am not a big defender of the Second Amendment but do feel strongly about the sanctity of the Constitution.  My rather long-winded dissertation attached.”

 . . . the dissertation noted above:

“The argument over the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution has me concerned.  Specifically our tendency to casually disregard the very clear mandate expressed in that text.  This is not because I’m a gun nut, but because the Constitution is the closest to a sacred document in my life and I have taken an oath to defend it.  Whether you’re a Communist, a Nazi or anything between, as an American, the Constitution is your protection.  There are defined means to amend this document, which we should follow, but to blatantly disregard its clear wording will potentially degrade the protections of other parts of the document.

“The reference to the militia in the Second Amendment is based on the colonial militia, which included every adult male in the local area.  It was BYOG in those days; i.e., bring your own gun, sword or pitchfork.  Armories were places where there may be some small cannon stored and some gunpowder.  At the time, the most deadly weapon in the world was arguably the Pennsylvania Long Rifle, used by many of the founders.  It was certainly a better weapon than the Brown Bess musket used by the British Army, which represented the legal government of the time.  Basically, the heroes of our founding were the terrorists of 1776, taking their private weapons and shooting the legal government.  When they later wrote the Constitution, the Founders obviously felt that it was possible that future governments could also become despotic and citizens would need, once again, to take up arms to defend their natural rights.  In simple terms, the founders wanted the citizens to be as well armed as the government.  Note in the Second Amendment that the term used is ‘arms’ and not ‘fire arms.’   At the time of the founding, this armament could certainly be the Pennsylvania Long Rifle, the most deadly weapon of the time, but the constitutional wording did not preclude other arms.  I would also note that there are no words ‘except for crazy people or bad people’ listed in the existing Second Amendment.

“Now, the term ‘arms’ in today’s world would include nuclear weapons and nerve gas among other lovelies.  Am I comfortable to have Bubba running around in his Dodge Ram pickup truck with nuclear weapon and a tank of nerve gas in the back?  Maybe not!  And for this reason, we need to review and amend the Second Amendment of the Constitution.

“The basic question about changing the Second Amendment is whether it is still reasonable to fear a despotic Federal government?  Are we mature enough as a society to preclude a usurpation of government power using only our normal election processes and the various separations of power in the federal system?  Do we trust our military and police forces to ‘defend the Constitution’ against despotic usurpation?   If so, we can probably assume that individual citizens do not need to be as well armed as the government and can make the amendment more specific to our current needs.

“And yes, I have a couple of storage boxes in the attic with rusty guns; I grew up hunting.  But let’s not kid ourselves, the Second Amendment to the Constitution was not about hunting, or personal safety, it was specifically there to ensure that the citizens were as well armed as the government.”

My reply:

            Re: Second Amendment.  With your permission, I will add your dissertation to this week’s Update.  I agree with your premise and hypothesis . . . to a point.  As a related (albeit distant) side note, I’m writing a section of Book 5 of my To So Few series of historical novels.  Brian transitions from No.609 Squadron flying the Supermarine Spitfire Mark IA to No.71 Squadron flying the Brewster Buffalo Mark I – a substantially inferior aircraft.  My point, even an inferior weapon in the hands of a skilled warrior can be formidable.  My point of disagreement is the notion of “review and amend.”  I do not see sufficient motive to open that door.  The Constitution as currently written and interpreted by the Supreme Court does NOT preclude ‘reasonable’ regulation.  What President Obama has done via his executive order(s) does not violate the Constitution, but depending on how some bureaucrat implements those regulation might very well violate the Constitution.  I do not see sufficient safeguards or protections.  The Constitution does prohibit or at least resist regulation that becomes or could become de facto prohibition.  The difficulty the Court has is respecting the separation of powers, and in this instance, the potential for an over-zealous Executive exceeding the letter and spirit of the Constitution is real.  To me, an armed populace is a counter-balance, like a 4th leg of the stool, to an intrusive government.

A different contribution:

“Thanks for the good movie review!  I want to see Star Wars-The Force Awakens but as well The Revenant seems worthy, 13 Hours (though someone in CIA said the movie is trash), and The Big Short.  We lost Alan Rickman, a wonderful actor this past week.  Not too many actors rank-up like he did, or rack-up the resume like he did.

“On MH17, I too look forward to finding out factually, who brought it down.  The Dutch are worthy in what I suspect will be their continued pursuits to bring light to the propaganda, and hopefully we'll discover the truth.

“I share your views on the chubby dictator of NKorea.  You may have seen an earlier post of mine Cap, where I asked why the CIA or other assets cannot terminate the NKorean psychopath.

“Your opinion/analysis on the CNN presentation Guns in America seems reasonable, though I disagree with you on Obama's sincerity.  The problem I have with so much of the news media hype about bad guns, is they so often fail to focus on the actor, and what psychotropics they are taking or been prescribed, what is going on with the suspect's life.   It too often is a total focus on BAD GUNS.  This typical script by news media tells me there are objectives that are much more sinister, than the event of a mass shooting which is tragic beyond most our imaginations.  Any more gun control than we already have, is just more GOV in our faces, in our lives, monitoring our so-called ‘privacy’ and advancing, whether through incrementalism or rapid leaps, the demonization of guns and anyone who strongly supports the 2nd Amendment.  I like your term used "intrusion creep."  Very good description of the trend-vector in our Technocratic Age of total surveillance and so-called security.

“I disagree with the labor front, I think most the job creations being cited are lower paying ‘minimum wage’ jobs and temporary employment roles.  I think Obama and his gang members are lying to the Americans and the economy is much softer than we know.  I could cite many indices from the limousine industry, my experiences, and that of others. 

“I could not agree with you more on the televangelists: ‘There seems to be more than a few of those wayward tel-evangelists, e.g., the fictional Elmer Gantry, and the very real and hypocritical Jim Bakker, Jimmy Swaggart, Ted Haggard, et al.  Hypocrisy is almost as bad as narcissism, egocentricity and arrogance.’  Very true Cap!

“On The Address in Dubai, I am surprised such little information has come out since the day of the fire (New Year's Eve).  It's like the event never happened.”

My response:

            Re: movies.  I certainly share your “to-do” list of movies.  We’ve not seen the others, as yet, either.

            Re: Rickman.  Oh my, yes indeedie.  I have always enjoyed his work, quite like Gary Oldman.  I share your opinion . . . a monumental actor . . . a great loss.  May God rest his immortal soul.

            Re: MH17.  I have more in this week’s Update.  The Russians are refuting the OVV analysis.  In contrast, I see the OVV report as one of the best reports on an event like MH17 I have seen to date.  Indeed, hopefully, we will discover the truth, but apparently, the Russians are quite, blatantly intent upon keeping the waters muddy.

            Re: DPRK dictator.  There is little doubt in my mind we could decapitate the DPRK government including the chubby dictator if we wished.  Like so many situations like this, I suppose we are in a “devil we know” state.  Decapitating a government without ensuring security and governance is not acceptable action, e.g., Iraq.  The United States (and our allies) failed to act responsibly.

            Re: guns.  OK, then we shall respectfully disagree regarding President Obama’s sincerity.  We do agree the Press is far too often seduced by dramatic, emotional, ‘commercial’ motives rather than contributing to finding solutions.  The physical entity often referred to as a gun is an inanimate object that has no means of spontaneous action.  That said, I have never thought selective enforcement is a good thing.  Background checks for gun sales are a good thing . . . for EVERYONE, NOT just licensed gun stores.  Congress cannot cut funding or Executive divert funding from personnel necessary to perform timely background checks.  As I have said many times before, the devil is in the details (e.g., my list of questions in Update no.734).

            Re: labor.  If your contention is correct, every president in history has lied to us . . . perhaps that is what presidents do.  The Labor Department (i.e., professional staff across administrations) report labor statistics by long established algorithms.  To point to President Obama in such a manner defies history and reality.  There is NO denial the economy is better now than it was in 2008/2009.  So, let’s give him a sliver of credit.

            Re: televangelists.  Good, we agree.

            Re: Address Hotel fire.  Again, we agree.  We may never get answers, but I remain interested and curious.

 . . . a third party, inserted contribution:

“Intelligence agencies make a point of not trying to assassinate foreign heads of state, which also have their own highly evolved intelligence agencies capable of returning the favor – with interest. Especially regarding societies where Saving Face is more valuable than life itself.

“Killing Kim wouldn’t be a video game caper. In retaliation the North Koreans would nuke an American city.”

. . . the follow-up comment from the original contributor:

“If I were Dr. Strangelove, I'd say we tell North Korea we will ablaze their country in flame and then they will glow for 100 years.  But since we are in the real world, I am gonna have to figure out better ways to de-conflict the growing pimple--the dictator of NKorea.

“So , do you believe NKorea has suitcase nukes, as I don't think they have the ballistic capacity to reach us?”

 . . . my response to both:

            You have a valid point.  From what I am aware of, the DPRK barely produced a functional fission device, set aside a functional fusion device.  I doubt they have the capacity to produced the miniaturization and precision required for a suitcase fission weapon, but even a non-functional weapon can become a dirty bomb, if employed properly.  They do not possess the necessary missile technology to produce an ICBM of sufficient capacity to deliver the weapon they could produce.  I think they have tried to demonstrate their submerged missile launch capability.  However, they do not have the history of sub-on-sub warfare to have a likelihood of circumventing our anti-submarine forces.  All that said, we must not under-estimate the potential violence of the DPRK.

            Also, I do agree with Jim [the inserted contributor].  Just because we can does not mean we should.  At least twice that I’m aware of, MI6 and OSS knew precisely where Hitler was located.  The leaders of the day discussed whether to make an attempt.  They had the means.  They chose not to make an attempted decapitation.  Their concern was predominately for protecting their intelligence source(s), but also for maintaining the ‘predictability’ of past performance by those in command of German armed forces.

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

Cheers,

Cap                        :-)

Update no.734

Update from the Heartland

No.734

4.1.16 – 10.1.16

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

To all,

           Life is good!  Jeanne watched Grandson Wyatt, while youngest Son Taylor and I went to the movie theater – Star Wars – The Force Awakens (Episode VII) – in IMAX 3D.  I will try to avoid the over-used adjective ‘awesome,’ as younger generations have commandeered the word and used it for many other things than its original meaning.  The technical aspects of the movie – music, sound, 3D effects, imagery – did not disappoint.  The storyline and acting continued in the vein of the previous movies.  Either you are a fan, or you are not.  This was the first of the franchise movies produced after George Lucas sold his ownership and rights to Disney; he apparently took no part in the movie’s development.  I really liked what J.J. Abrams did with the story and the state-of-the-art cinematic technology.  Disney must also be commended for their hyping of the movie.  Even if you are not a fan, I would strongly recommend this movie just for the sheer experience of the new technology.

            The follow-up news items:

-- The Guardian (UK) reported that Dutch OVV investigators will assess a new British study that claims to have identified the Russian crew who fired the BUK1 missile and brought down Flight MH17 over Eastern Ukraine [657, 665, 722].  The circumstantial information has always pointed at the Russians.  Once the Dutch investigators proved that it was a BUK1 missile, the perpetrators narrowed substantially.  I look forward to seeing the Dutch assessment.

-- The U.S. Geological Survey detected a 5.1 magnitude earthquake in the northeast of the DPRK (North Korea) near their nuclear test site.  The DPRK claims to have detonated a fusion device [252, 389, 583].  Experts around the world indicate the seismic event was not consistent with a fusion device detonation.  Thus, if it was an attempt at a fusion device, it was most likely a failure.  The followed their explosive test by a submerged missile launch.  The cynical side of me almost wants the chubby dictator to make his move, so we can be done with this nonsense and petulance.

            On Thursday, CNN broadcast their program “Guns in America – Obama Town Hall” held at George Mason University with an attempt for all sides to be represented . . . except the National Rifle Association (NRA), which declined their invitation.  I shall offer my impressions and perspective, since I am writing and editing here.  If other wish to express their opinion, I strongly encourage you to do so.

            The President said, “[A]ll of us can agree that it makes sense to do everything we can to keep guns out of the hands of people who would try to do others harm or to do themselves harm, because every year we're losing 30,000 people to gun violence.  Two-thirds of those are actually suicides.  Hundreds of kids under the age of 18 are being shot or shooting themselve, often by accident, many of them under the age of 5.”  We have heard the 30,000 numbers innumerable times.  We have not heard that 2/3 (20,000 of those 30,000) are actually suicides; they are not mass shootings that garner headlines and evoke emotions.

            He then added, “And so if we can combine gun safety with sensible background checks and some other steps, we're not going to eliminate gun violence, but we will lessen it.”  Herein lies the rub.  As noted below, we can probably hack out some reasonable definitions for what the highlighted items mean, but my concern rests upon the safeguards to ensure the spirit, intent and purpose of those laws (restrictions) are not progressively eroded by bureaucrats and unseen administrators.

            My concern as noted above is represented in the President’s response regarding enforcement of existing laws.  The President answered, “In terms of the ATF, it is absolutely true that the ATF budget has been . . . shrunk . . . and part of it is because the politicizing of this issue.  So, many in the Republican Congress feel as if the ATF is not their friend, but their enemy.”  The ATF “have been portrayed as trying to take people's guns away, as opposed to trying to make sure that the laws are enforced. And, one of the most frustrating things that I hear is when people say -- who are opposed to any further laws – why don't you just enforce the laws that are on the books, and those very same members of Congress then cut a ATF budgets to make it impossible to enforce the law.” “[T]he ATF [is] a law enforcement agency working under the FBI that is doing enormous work in going after criminals, and drug cartels, and have a pretty dangerous job, so, it's not as if doing background checks, or auditing gun sales is all that they're doing.”  What point do laws serve when Congress restricts funding for enforcement of those laws?

            Captain Mark Kelly, USN (Ret.) asked, “I would like you to explain with 350 million guns in 65 million places, households, from Key West, to Alaska, 350 million objects in 65 million places, if the Federal government wanted to confiscate those objects, how would they do that?”  I winced when I heard the question, but as I thought about it, the query was a perfect opening to discuss the ridiculousness of the confiscation conspiracy propaganda so often bandied about these days.  Unfortunately, the President chose to ignore the question and missed the opportunity.

            The rapidly mounting brouhaha over President Obama’s potential executive order(s) regarding expanded background checks and plugging the so-called gun show loophole raises an important point . . . from my perspective.  The issue is not whether enhanced background checks are a good thing to do for reducing the likelihood of mentally ill people gaining access to firearms.  The central, if not primary or paramount, issue for me is what is done with the information and by whom?  I want to see the thresholds – what is acceptable, what is not?

            As a historical side note, presidents have used executive orders since the founding of the Republic.  Some of those executive orders have been highly controversial.  For example:

·      Roosevelt issued Executive Order 9066 interning American citizens of Japanese heritage without due process of law.

·      Roosevelt issued Executive Order 9182 creating the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) that became the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

·      Truman issued Executive Orders 9980 & 9981 ordering the racial integration of the armed services.

·      Nixon issued Executive Order 11472 creating the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

·      Among many other examples.

I see nothing unusual or untoward in Obama’s executive orders.  He is doing what presidents do.

            Everyone from the President on down and outward throws around the term ‘background check’ in such a matter-of-fact manner that leaves me with the impression that they believe it is the Holy Grail.  Like all things, the devil is in the details.  Questions abound:
Who determines the threshold of acceptability? 
Who and how is the judgment of success or failure of any particular check made? 
How are all the associated, relevant databases, lists, files and such managed, linked, interrogated and protected? 
How is the information derived through the linked files controlled and sufficient safeguards in place and enforced to ensure unauthorized or unintended collateral use is prohibited?
Who determines the performance of the background check center? 
Can Congress take away funding for personnel to perform the actual checks to be so narrowed that the time for a simple background check slowly (or rapidly) increases from three days, to a week, a month, a year, or to ten years?  Like so many governmental actions, e.g., veterans medical coverage, and such, Congress controls enforcement by their allocation of funding.

What is included in determining the pass-fail criteria for a background check? 
How is that criteria established? 
Who and how can those criteria be changed?

Who and how is a person’s mental health threshold crossed – commitment to a mental health facility (the few that exist today), suicide attempt, violence arrest or conviction (i.e., domestic violence)?

The question of gun background checks is essential the same as warrantless surveillance – what is a threshold trigger criterion? 
Who has access to the information? 
What controls will be put in place to protect against abuse beyond the intended, approved purpose?

            I do not doubt the President’s sincerity in this issue.  I am not worried about President Obama or his successors.  I am deeply worried about the unnamed, unseen bureaucrats who administer the laws we create.  We cannot just say expand background checks without understanding how these background checks work and how intrusion creep might affect our privacy and our lives in the future.

           The continued yammerings of the Republican Party front-runner candidate about the ‘natural-born’ eligibility of Senator ‘Ted’ Cruz is yet one more example of the front-runner’s not-so-subtle sexism.  Cruz was born in Canada to an American citizen mother and a Cuban father.  If the gender of Cruz’s parents was reversed, I doubt the front-runner’s ‘birther’ persistence would be applied.  Until the remnants of the English common law, Doctrine of Coverture, was expunged from U.S. immigration law (1922), the mother’s citizenship was irrelevant as her status was derived directly from her husband, as the law considered her to be of her husband.  The front-runner is simply trying to create confusion in the minds of those voters who do not understand or have no interest in learning about the law.  His persistent harping on this non-issue is yet one more example of his unsuitability to be president.

            News from the economic front:

-- The Labor Department reported nonfarm payrolls increased a seasonally adjusted 292,000 in December.  The unemployment rate held steady at 5.0% -- it has not been below this level since 2007.  The December employment numbers are the latest sign of a stable U.S. economy in the face of international headwinds.

            Comments and contributions from Update no.733:

“I will comment on one of your statements, not to refute it but to offer for contemplation.  You stated, ‘The arrogance of power is not a successful path to win friends and influence others.’  I will paraphrase and offer that: The arrogance of self-righteousness is not a successful path to win friends and influence others.  Surely we have seen the pitfall of self-righteousness get the better of some individuals to the point of not letting logic and common sense get in the way.

“Regarding the fire at the Address Hotel in Dubai I had the same thoughts as you.  What was so flammable on the exterior?  Even on the interior, what was so flammable that caused such quick burn-through to floors above?  With the type of construction that should have gone into a building of this magnitude, something just doesn’t seem right to me.  Can’t wait to hear/read about what caused such quick and extensive damage.”

My response:

            Re: ‘self-righteousness.’  Amen brother!  Works either way, it seems to me.  I’m not a fan of that trait either.

            Re: Address Downtown Hotel Dubai fire.  There were more than a few things odd about that fire.  Hopefully, we will see if we will get an investigation report.  Time shall tell.

Another contribution:

“Osteen:  I agree with the assessment.  A lot of the tv evangelists need to take a lesson from the humility of Rev. Billy Graham.”

My reply:

            There seems to be more than a few of those wayward tel-evangelists, e.g., the fictional Elmer Gantry, and the very real and hypocritical Jim Bakker, Jimmy Swaggart, Ted Haggard, et al.   Hypocrisy is almost as bad as narcissism, egocentricity and arrogance.

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

Cheers,

Cap                        :-)